IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2008 / 25TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 20519 of 2008(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- 1. S.AJI, LOWER DIVISION CLERK (HIGHER GRADE), DIRECTORATE OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, TRIVANDRUM. 2. S.S.SUJA, UPPER DIVISION CLERK (HIGHER GRADE), DIRECTORATE OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SRI.T.S.SHYAM PRASANTH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.R.SREELATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.20519 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 16th July, 2008 J U D G M E N T First petitioner was appointed as L.D. Clerk by operation of the rank list for L.D Clerks in various Departments in Trivandrum district. He was appointed in the General Education Department. He is aggrieved that he has not been given promotion to the higher post. Second petitioner was appointed as L.D Clerk in the same department pursuant to the enforcement of the rank list for the same post in Trivandrum District. She was promoted as U.D Clerk. Since the unit of appointment in the post of L.D. Clerk in the matter of inter-district transfer is the Revenue district, the incumbent is liable to be treated as junior-most in the new district. According to the petitioners, the provisional list of L.D Clerks, who had acquired the test qualification between December 2003 and December 2004 was published as per Exhibit P2 dated 8.5.2007. Apparently there were irregularities in W.P ( C) No.20519 of 2008 2 the preparation of the seniority list relating to assignment of seniority to inter district transferees. In the meanwhile, a Special Cell was constituted to look into these aspects and it issued Exhibit P5 Circular along with provisional seniority list of U.D. Clerks. Petitioners submit that they have no objection to Exhibits P2 and P5. But Exhibits P2 and P5 seniority lists have not been finalized and hence the writ petition. 2. Learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that the Director of Technical Education has sought for certain clarifications from the Government and such clarifications have not been obtained so far. In fact he has sought for clarification as early as on 31.1.2008. Hence the delay in the finalization of Exhibits P2 and P5. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners points out that the Supreme Court in Sudhakaran Vs. State of Kerala [2006 (2) KLT 817] issued directions as to the manner in which the seniority of an incumbent who obtains an inter district transfer will have to be worked out. Where the district is a unit and inter district transfer is effected, the W.P ( C) No.20519 of 2008 3 incumbents who apply for the same and are subjected to inter district transfer will forfeit their seniority. If there are any exceptions in the case of headquarters vacancies then that may be taken note of. But I find it difficult to understand why there should be so much delay in issuing clarification on an aspect, assuming such clarification is required, in relation to an area which has been considered by the Supreme Court itself. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to give such clarifications as are required by the Director, if not already given, in the matter of finalization of Exhibits P2 and P5 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Thereupon, steps shall be taken by the 2nd respondent to finalise Exhibits P2 and P5, within a period of three months thereafter. If there is delay on the part of the Government in issuing clarifications as sought for by the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent shall proceed to finalise the list in accordance with law, without awaiting any clarification from the Government as such. Irrespective of whether the W.P ( C) No.20519 of 2008 4 clarification is given by the Government, Exhibits P2 and P5 shall be finalized by the 2nd respondent taking note of the law declared by the Supreme Court in Sudhakaran Vs. State of Kerala.[2006 (2) KLT 817] I make it clear that the time frame need not be treated as flexible by the Director merely because there might be delay on the part of the Government in giving a clarification. (V.GIRI, JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.20519 of 2008 5 W.P ( C) No.20519 of 2008 6