IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2010 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 32598 of 2010(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER : ------------------ P.R.SREEKUMAR, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O. P.V.RAGHAVAN NAIR, PERUMANATHU HOUSE, KALANJOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA, NOW WORKING IN ATTENDER SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEWS RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT JUDGE, DISTRICT COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. G.BAHULAYAN, AMIN, DISTRICT COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. ANTONY MUKKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P. (C) NO. 32598 OF 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of October, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner is presently working as Attender in Sub Court, Pathanamthitta. In this writ petition he raises a seniority dispute vis-a-vis the third respondent. According to the petitioner, the third respondent came to the Judicial department by inter- departmental transfer from the department of Indian Systems of Medicine. The petitioner was promoted as Process Server on 20.3.2001 and the third respondent became Process Server in the Judicial department only on 30.6.2001. Despite the same, in Ext.P1 seniority list, the 3rd respondent was given seniority over the petitioner is the compliant of the petitioner in this writ petition. But Ext.P1 seniority list was published as early as on 16.2.2008. The petitioner filed a representation against Ext.P1 seniority list only on 2.3.2009. That application was rejected by Ext.P2 order on 24.7.2009 primarily on the ground of delay in challenging Ext.P1 appropriately. Even after Ext.P2, it is after 1 year and 3 months the petitioner is challenging Exts.P1 and P2, on 22.10.2010. When the petitioner was asked to explain the long delay, the petitioner rely on the explanation offered in W.P. (C) NO. 32598 OF 2010 2 paragraph 6 of the writ petition which reads as follows:- “6. Petitioner who was working as an attender when Exhibit P1 prepared by the District judge was published could not take steps against it apprehending that it may result in inviting displeasure from the learned judge. Moreover he felt that he will not be affected by Exhibit P1. That was the reason why Exhibit P1 was not challenged earlier. Even after issuance of Exhibit P2 he did not approach this Hon'ble court earlier apprehending displeasure from his superiors. But now since it is sure that his civil rights will be affected by Exhibit P2 he is compelled to approach this Hon'ble court. There is no delay in this case as his rights are actually being affected now. Moreover the delay if any has to be condoned in view of the special facts and circumstances on this case.” Petitioner would also rely on the decision of the Supreme Court in Shiba shankar Mohapatra and Ors. v. State of Orrisa and ors, (AIR 2010 SC 706) in paragraph 29 of which, according to the petitioner, the Supreme Court has held that 3 to 4 years of delay in the matter of challenging seniority list can be condoned. Even for condoning 3 to 4 years delay petitioner has to give some satisfactory explanation. The explanation given by the petitioner is not at all satisfactory. I am unable to countenance the contention of the petitioner that a Judicial Officer in the State of Kerala would harbour an ill will towards one of his subordinates simply because the subordinate has filed a representation against a seniority list. As such the said explanation cannot be accepted at all. Even otherwise, petitioner W.P. (C) NO. 32598 OF 2010 3 has filed the representation against Ext.P1 seniority list after more than an year for which the petitioner has not given any satisfactory explanation at all, the delay in filing which was the reason for rejection of his representation. In the above circumstances, I am of opinion that this writ petition is bad for unexplained delay and laches. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed on that ground. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE mns