IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2011 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 14577 of 2011(V) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. SADAYAKUMAR.K.V., EXCISE INSPECTOR, EXCISE INTELLIGENCE AND INVESTIGATION BUREAU, PALAKKAD. 2. T.V.DIVAKARAN, EXCISE INSPECTOR, EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, ERATTUPETTA, KOTTAYAM. 3. K.ABDUL AZEEZ, EXCISE INSPECTOR, KOOTTUPUZHA CHECK POST, KOOTTUPUZHA,KANNUR. 4. P.B.GOPALAKRISHNAN, EXCISE INSPECTOR, OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL EXCISE COMMISSIONER (ENFORCEMENT), COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN SMT.DIVYA CHANDRAN RESPONDENT\S: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695039. 3. THE JOINT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695039. 4. THE ADDITIONAL EXCISE COMMISSIONER (ADMINISTRATION), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695039. 5. P.L.JOSE, EXCISE INSPECTOR, EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, CHALAKKUDY-680307. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SMITHA SUKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J --------------------------------------- WP(C) No.14577 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioners are working as Excise Inspectors. They were initially appointed as Preventive Officers and their seniority in that cadre was finalised years back. They were promoted as Assistant Excise Inspectors and their seniority in the cadre of Assistant Excise Inspectors has become final as is evident from Ext.P1 seniority list finalised on 2.11.2004. They were promoted as Excise Inspectors as per Ext.P3 select list prepared by the Departmental Promotion Committee. Pursuant to the same, they are working as Excise Inspectors from March, 2005. Now as per Ext.P3, the 4th respondent has revised the seniority list of Assistant Excise Inspectors working during the period from 1.11.1996 to 31.12.2003. Ext.P3 is stated to be based on Ext.P4 Government order. According to the petitioners, neither before passing Ext.P4 Government order nor before issuing Ext.P3 seniority list, the petitioners were afforded an opportunity being heard. They would contend that the respondents could not have reopened a seniority list settled seven years ago. It is under the WP(C) No.14577 of 2011 -: 2 :- above circumstances the petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs; i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records leading to Ext.P3 and P4 and quash the same; ii) Declare that the petitioners are entitled for seniority and ranking as per Exts. P1 and P2 which have become final. 2. On 31.5.2011, I directed the learned Government Pleader to get instructions as to whether the revision of seniority of the petitioners was with notice to the petitioners. Today the learned Government Pleader submits that it is true that the petitioners were not heard before passing either Ext.P3 or Ext.P4. But the contention of the learned Government Pleader is that a hearing is slated to be conducted in respect of the finalisation of the seniority list in the cadre of Excise Inspectors and therefore the petitioners' grievances can be considered at that time. I do not think that a hearing regarding finalisation of seniority list in the cadre of Excise Inspectors would satisfy the principles of natural justice insofar as by Exts.P3 and P4 the seniority of the petitioners in the cadre Assistant Excise Inspector, which has WP(C) No.14577 of 2011 -: 3 :- been settled as early as in 2004, has been unsettled. In the above circumstances, I am satisfied that Exts.P3 and P4 are unsustainable for violation of principles of natural justice. They are quashed. The 1st respondent is directed to reconsider the issue after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and all others who are likely to be affected by the orders to be passed in the matter. But at the same time, the Government shall also consider the question as to how the Government can unsettle a seniority list which was settled seven years ago. The writ petition is disposed as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE. smvd