IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2011 / 14TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 36257 of 2010(F) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. BABURAJAN VALIYAPURAYIL, S/O.KANNAN, JR.SUPERINTENDENT, AGED 41 YEARS, PAPPINISSERY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KANNUR, VALIYAPURAYIL HOUSE, PAZHASSI, PAVANNOOR MOTTA P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. A.V.PRAKASAN, S/O.E.V.PADMANABHAN NAMBIAR, AGED 44 YEARS, JR.SUPERINTENDENT, ALORA HOUSE, PERFORMANCE AUDIT UNIT 3 OFFICE, KANNUR, NADUVIL P.O., KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAMKUMAR NAMBIAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATHS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.36257 OF 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioners are Junior Superintendents in Panchayat Common Service. In respect of seniority of Junior Superintendents, Ext.P10 draft seniority list was published inviting objections. The petitioners submitted Exts.P11 and P12 objections. Again another draft seniority list, Ext.P13 was published to which also the petitioners have filed Exts.P14 an P15 objections. Thereafter, Ext.P16 notice was issued directing the petitioners and others to be present for a hearing on the objections. At the time of hearing also, the first petitioner filed Ext.P17 objections. The second petitioner also is stated to have submitted his objections at the time of hearing. Now by Ext.P18 order, the seniority list has been finalised, which according to the petitioners, is without considering the objections raised by the petitioners. W.P.(C)No.36257/10 2 2. In view of the averments in the writ petition, on 6.12.2010, I directed the learned Government Pleader to get instructions as to whether while finalising the seniority list the objections filed by the petitioners were considered and what was the decision of the appropriate authority on the objections recorded in the files. Today, the learned Government Pleader on instructions submits that the individual objections were not separately considered since there were more than 800 objections. The broader principles regarding seniority were laid down and the seniority list was finalised in the light of the broader guidelines only. It is submitted that the individual objections of the petitioners were not separately considered and orders passed. 3. I am not satisfied that, that is the way to finalise a provisional seniority list. The very object of publishing a provisional seniority list calling for objections is to give an opportunity to persons aggrieved by the provisional seniority list to take up the matter with the authority competent, which if found correct, have to be taken into account while preparing the final seniority list. Such a procedure is not an empty formality. When the petitioners were invited for a hearing the W.P.(C)No.36257/10 3 authority is bound to enter a finding regarding the objections of the petitioners either way on merits. Notwithstanding the fact that the number of objections are large, the appropriate authority is bound to consider each objection especially since some of the objections may not be of general nature but against the inter se position of two individual employees which has to be considered separately and orders passed thereon. Such a procedure had admittedly not been undertaken in this case. The petitioners have a right to have their objections viz. Exts.P11, P12 , P14, P15, P17 and the one filed by the 2nd petitioner at the time of hearing. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to consider Exts.P11, P12, P14, P15, P17 and other objections filed by the petitioners in accordance with law and pass orders thereon and communicate the same to the petitioners before operating the seniority list. If the objections of the petitioners are found sustainable the seniority list shall be appropriately recast, but after hearing the affected persons as well. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.36257/10 4 W.P.(C)No.36257/10 5