IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 6TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 15TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 24351 of 2011(T) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. K.T.JOHNSON, ARMOURER HC, ARMOURER HEAD CONSTABLE 5402, HQ COMPANY, A.R.CAMP, ALAPPUZHA. 2. RAVI N.T., ARMOURER HEAD CONSTABLE 5862, A.R.CAMP, ALAPPUZHA. 3. JAYAN C.GOPALAN, ARMOURER HEAD CONSTABLE E 9353, AR CAMP, KOCHI CITY. 4. MATHEW P.P., ARMOURER, HEAD CONSTABLE 8023, A.R.CAMP, KOCHI CITY. 5. SURESHKUMAR V., ARMOURER HEAD CONSTABLE 2199, A.R.CAMP, IDUKKI. BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ARMED POLICE BATTALION, ERNAKULAM RANGE, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 031. 2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ARMED POLICE BATTALION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 514. 3. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ARMED POLICE BATTALION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 514. 4. RATNAKARAN PILLAI, ARMOURER HEAD CONSTABLE, CHIEF STORE, ARMED POLICE BATTALION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 514. 5. MOHAMMED SHAFI, ARMOURER HEAD CONSTABLE, A.R.CAMP, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN-689 645. 6. SUNIL KUMAR V., ARMOURER HEAD CONSTABLE, A.R.CAMP, KOLLAM, PIN-691 001. R1 TO R3 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C)NO.24351/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01/8/1998 OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. P2 COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL SENIORITY LIST OF ARMOURER HC/HAVALDARS IN ERNAKULAM RANGE PUBLISHED AS PER ORDER DATED 2/8/2010 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P3 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 11/8/2011 OF THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P3(A) COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 11/8/2011 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE P4 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16/8/2011 OF THE 3RD PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P5 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE 4TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P6 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE 5TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P7 COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL STATE WISE COMBINED SENIORITY LIST OF ARMOURER HAVILDARS/HCS PUBLISHED BY 3RD RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 30/5/2011. P8 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 17/6/2011 OF THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P9 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P10 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE 3RD PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P11 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 14/6/2011 OF THE 4TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P12 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE 5TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P13 COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL SENIORITY LIST OF ARMOUER ASIS AS ON 01/1/2005. P14 COPY OF THE STATE WISE COMBINED FINAL SENIORITY LIST OF ARMOUR HCS/HAVALDARS AS PER ORDER NO.AI-11999/2003 APB DATED 24/8/2011 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C)No.24351 of 2011 ---------------------------- Dated 6th September, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioners are working as Armourer Head Constables in Ernakulam Range of the Police Department. Essentially, the grievance of the petitioners is with respect to the finalization of seniority list of the said category as per Ext.P14. Various contentions have been raised by the petitioners to assail Ext.P14. Firstly, it is contended that the Deputy Inspector General of Police is lacking jurisdiction to finalize the State wise combined seniority list of Armourer Head Constables/Havildars without considering the final range wise seniority list of Armourer Head Constables/Havildars. Earlier, a provisional seniority list of Armourer Head Constables/Havildars in Ernakulam range was published. The petitioners have raised objections against the said provisional seniority list. In fact, they raised their objections against Ext.P7 provisional range wise list as well. The grievance of the petitioners is that without considering the objections raised by the petitioners against the range wise provisional seniority list and without waiting for its finalization the third respondent has issued Ext.P14 finalising the State wise combined seniority list of Armourer Head Constables/Havildars. The further contention of the petitioners is that such an undue hasty action has been resorted to only for the purpose to give undue benefits to the WP(C).No.24351/2011 2 party respondents. Considering the fact that Ext.P14 is a final seniority list, it will be inappropriate for this Court to consider the contentions pertaining to a seniority dispute on merits at this state in the light of the provisions under Rule 27B of Part II of the Kerala State & Subordinate Services Rules (for short `the Rules'). In case of a dispute regarding the seniority or any matters connected with it, it will be open to the aggrieved person to take up the matter to the Government through representation, in view of Rule 27B of the Rules. Evidently, the grievance of the petitioners is against Ext.P14 final seniority list of Armourer Head Constables/Havildars as on 1.1.2006. As already noticed hereinbefore, the petitioners have raised a specific contention that though their objections against the provisional range wise seniority list of Armourer Head Constables/Havildars in Ernakulam Range was not so far been considered and it was without finalising the same that Ext.P14 State wise final seniority list for the said category was published. I am of the view that those contentions require a serious consideration at the hands of the Government. In the said circumstances, in case the petitioners move proper representations before the Government under Rule 27B of the Rules the same shall be considered by the Government expeditiously, in WP(C).No.24351/2011 3 accordance with the provisions of Rule 27B. Needless to say that before passing orders on such representations, if received, the person/persons likely to be affected in case of a decision favourable to the petitioners shall also be put on notice. This shall be done expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of such representations. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS