IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 13TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 22ND BHADRA 1932 RP.No. 707 of 2010(L) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.34132/2006 Dated 02/07/2007 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------------- 1. UNNIKRISHNAN P.N., HEAD CONSTABLE NO.A.4263, ARMED RESERVE CAMP, ALAPPUZHA. (NOW PROMOTED AS ASI, AR CAMP, KOTTAYAM). 2. JAYAPRAKASH.P.R., HEAD CONSTABLE NO.A 4256, ARMED RESERVE CAMP, ALAPPUZHA. 3. SAIFUDEEN, HEAD CONSTABLE NO.A 4168, ARMED RESERVE CAMP, ALAPPUZHA, (NOW PROMOTED AS ASI, AR CAMP, ALAPPUZHA). 4. SEBASTIAN, HEAD CONSTABLE NO.A 4211 ARMED RESERVE CAMP, ALAPPUZHA. (NOW PROMOTED AS ASI, AR CAMP, IDUKKI.) 5. ULLAS.P.S., HEAD CONSTABLE NO.A 4251, ARMED RESERVE CAMP, ALAPPUZHA, (NOW PROMOTED AS ASI, AR CAMP, IDUKKI). 6. RAJAGOPALAN.S., HEAD CONSTABLE NO. A 4276, ARMED RESERVE CAMP, ALAPPUZHA. (NOW PROMOTED AS ASI, AR CAMP, KOTTAYAM). 7. VENU.G., HEAD CONSTABLE NO.A 4277 ARMED RESERVE CAMP, ALAPPUZHA. 8. DHANAPALAN.C.R., HEAD CONSTABLE NO.A 3801, ARMED RESERVE CAMP, ALAPPUZHA. RP.No. 707 of 2010 9. VENUGOPALAN NAIR C.S., HEAD CONSTABLE NO.A 4296, ARMED RESERVE CAMP, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. MR.C.A.CHACKO RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ERNAKULAM RANGE, ERNAKULAM. (NOW INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM RANGE, ERNAKULAM.) ADV. MR. ARAVINDA KUMAR BABU T.K. - GOVT.PLEADER. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------ R.P.No.707 OF 2010 IN W.P.(C) No.34132 OF 2006 ------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of September, 2010 ORDER The petitioners seek review of judgment dated 2.7.2007 in W.P.(c)No.34132/2006, which reads thus: “The petitioners are Armed Reserve Head Constables in the District Armed Reserve, Alappuzha. They were aggrieved by the assignment of seniority to certain persons in the cadre of Armed Reserve Head Constables in Ernakulam. They filed representations against the seniority list published in Ernakulam Range of Armed Reserve Head Constables as on 1.1.2002 before the Government. This court directed the consideration of their representations. One of the petitioners were heard and the Government issued Ext.P18 order (G.O.(Rt) 3252/05/Home dated 30.12.2005). The grievance of the petitioners is that some of the Head Constables in Ernakulam Armed Reserve, who were actually promoted as Head Constables only in 1997, were assigned seniority with effect from 17.6.1996 and thereby they were able to get seniority over the petitioners who were promoted in 1997. 2. The Government found in Ext.P18 that several vacancies arose in Ernakulam in 1996 and some of the Constables who got promotion were test qualified as on 17.7.1996. So they were notionally promoted with retrospective effect from the date of acquisition of qualification, having regard to the availability of large number of vacancies. Based on that finding, the representations filed by the petitioners were rejected. This writ petition is filed challenging the said order, Ext.P18. 3. I find that the reasoning of the Government R.P.NO.707/10 2 to reject the representations is very sound. The petitioners have not pleaded or placed any materials in the writ petition to interfere with the finding of fact that the persons promoted with retrospective effect became test qualified on 17.7.1996 and there were vacancies available to accommodate them. In view of the above position, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed”. The contention of the petitioners is that the averments of the Government were found to be wrong on the basis of documents obtained by the petitioners by resort to Right to Information Act, which are produced as annexures. The petitioners therefore seek review of the judgment and re-hearing of the writ petition on the basis of the documents now produced as annexures to the review petition. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. The judgment is dated 2.7.2007. The review petition is filed only on 15.6.2010. The petitioners’ only explanation for the long delay of three years is that the petitioners obtained the documents in support of their cases only now. But from the documents themselves it is clear that the petitioners applied for the documents under the Right to Information Act only on 24.10.2009. Therefore, still the petitioners are liable to explain the long delay of more than two years from 2.7.2007 to 24.10.2009. No satisfactory explanation is forthcoming. R.P.NO.707/10 3 In the above circumstances, I am of opinion that the petitioners are guilty of unexplained delay and laches. The review petition is dismissed on that ground. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd R.P.NO.707/10 4