IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 16538 of 2008(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- P.N.HABEEB MUHAMMED, RTD.SPL.TAHSILDAR (LA) DARUSSALAM HOUSE, P.O.EDATHIRUTHY, THRISSUR DIST - 680 703. BY ADV. SRI.A.D.SHAJAN SRI.S.SHARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. COMMISSIONERATE LAND REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SANDESH RAJA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.16538/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17/8/1990 IN OP NO.3588/1989 BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.10.2000 IN OP NO.16526/1996 BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 1.8.2000 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER 45677/C2/2001/RD DATED 8/10/2002 ISSUED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5: A TRUE COPY OF the ORDER NO.GO(RT) 280/2001/RD DATED 30/1/2001 ISSUED BY GOVT.OF KERALA. EXT.P6: A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMETN DATED 5.6.2001 IN OP NO.11741/1993 BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P7: A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 5.6.2001 IN OP NO.3426/1994 BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P8: A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.7.2006 IN OPNO.35305/2002 BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P9: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.E5/29549/2002 DATED 4.2.2003 ISSUED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE TO THE GOVERNMENT SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P10: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.E5/29549/2002 DATED 25.3.2003 ISSUED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE TO THE COMMISSIONER LAND REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P11: A TRUE COPY FO THE ORDER NO.GO(RT) 4340/2007/RD DATED 27.10.2007 ISSUED BY GOVT. OF KERALA. EXT.P12: A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 6.4.1995 IN WA NO.162/1991 BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. WPC NO.16538/08 -2- EXT.P13: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15/9/2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P14: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19/10/2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPT., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P15: A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE QUALIFIED DEPUTY TAHSILDARS AS ON 21/6/1991. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 16538 OF 2008 (R) ===================== Dated this the 10th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner entered service of the Revenue Department as LD Clerk way back in 1961 and was promoted as UDC in 1965 and as Deputy Tahsildar in 1975. Finally, he retired as Special Tahsildar (LR) on 31/10/1989. 2. Ext.P1 is the judgment rendered by this Court in OP.No.3588/1989 directing the respondents therein to recast the seniority list of Deputy Tahsildars in the manner mentioned in the judgment. Subsequently, petitioner approached this Court and filed OP No.16326/96 claiming the benefit of the directions in Ext.P1 judgment. That Original Petition was disposed of by Ext.P2 judgment directing that if the petitioner is similarly situated to the petitioners in Ext.P1 judgment, his claim for extension of the benefits shall be considered. 3. Accordingly, he submitted Ext.P3 representation, which was considered and rejected by Ext.P5 on the ground that the petitioner was far junior to the petitioners in the previous original petitions. Ext.P4 is an order passed following Ext.P5 conveying WPC 16538/08 :2 : the petitioner about the rejection of his representation. 4. On receipt of Ext.P4, he filed OP No.35305/2002. That Original Petition was again disposed of by Ext.P8 directing reconsideration of the matter in the light of Exts.P9 and P10 issued by the District Collector. The matter was again considered and Ext.P11 order was issued rejecting the request of the petitioner. Para 5 of Ext.P11 reads as under: Government have once again examined the matter in detail. As per the final seniority list of Tahsildars during the period from 25.9.62 to 31.12.95 which was published vide proceedings No.LR E12-39692/95 the alleged juniors are not juniors but are far senior to the petitioner. Once the final seniority list came into force anybody can aspire promotion only in accordance with that list. Hence the request of the petitioner for notional promotion to the cadre of and above Deputy Tahsildar from the date of promotion of Sri.Indu Narayanan or Sri.V.A.Balagangadharan cannot be considered. However, the request for notional fixation in the intermediary cadre of Head Clerk is allowed by virtue of GO(P) No.968/87/Fin. dated 17.11.87. The Commissioner of Land Revenue will take necessary steps for the fixation of pay as mentioned above. The aforesaid paragraph and also para 8 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents would show that going by the seniority list of Tahsildars, petitioners in Ext.P1 judgment were seniors to the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner could not have claimed WPC 16538/08 :3 : the benefit that were extended by this Court in Ext.P1. 5. Learned Government Pleader also submits that subsequent to the seniority list mentioned in Ext.P1 referred to above, revised seniority list was also published by the respondents on 19/7/96. These seniority lists have become final and in these seniority lists, the persons who are described by the petitioner as his juniors are seniors. Petitioner has not challenged these seniority lists. So long as the seniority lists have attained finality and as per the seniority assigned to them, the aforesaid persons are senior to the petitioners. In such circumstance, petitioner cannot claim parity with his seniors. If that be so, the conclusion in Ext.P11 order is unassailable. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in OP NO.7090/04 where it has been held that if there is a general declaration of law, even in the absence of a person approaching the court individually, such person will also be eligible for the benefit of such general declaration. In my view, this principle cannot be of any assistance to the petitioner for the reason that unless the petitioner proves himself to be WPC 16538/08 :4 : similarly situated to the persons mentioned above, he cannot claim the benefit that are extended to such persons. Therefore, this principle also does not help the petitioner. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp