IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 28TH MAGHA 1930 OP.No. 3668 of 1999(J) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- V.P. KUTTISANKARAN, FINANCE OFFICER, GRADE II, COLLECTORATE, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. MR.M.V.BOSE MR.CHERIAN VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KEARLA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO FINANCE DEPEARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. P.K. JAYARAJAN, FINANCE FOFICER, GRADE I, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER (IRRIGATION PROJECT), CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE. 3. B. MADHUSOODANAN PILLAI, FINANCE OFFICER GRADE I, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER (IRRIGATION) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. N. PADMAKUMAR, FINANCE OFFICER, GRADE II., OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. T.M. MATHUKUTTY, FINANCE MANAGER, KERALA STATE MARITIME DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ERNAKULAM. 6. L. REMA, FINANCE OFFICER, GRADE II, COLLECTORATE, ERNAKUALM. 7. V. VIJAYAN, FINANCE OFFICER, GRADE II, COLLECTORATE, TRICHUR. OP.No. 3668 of 1999 8. K.M. RAGHURAMAN, FINANCE OFFICER, GRADE II, COLLECTORATE, TRICHUR. 9. T.S. ABRAHAM, FINANCE OFFICER, GRADE II, KERALA HEADLOAD WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, (ON DEPUTATION) CALICUT – 32. 10. T.L. SUSEELAN, FINANCE OFFICER, GRADE II, (ON DEPUTATION AS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) SREESANKARA UNIVERSITY, KALADY. 11. O.M. DIVAKARAN, FINANCE OFFICER, GRADE II, COLLECTORATE, KASARAGOD. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. T.K.VIPINDAS MR.S.ESWARAN FOR MR.V.I.JOSEPH FOR MR.K.CHANDRASEKHARAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE MR.T.P.PANKAJAKSHAN FOR DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM FOR R2,3,4 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP.No. 3668 of 1999 ORDERS ON C.M.P.NOS.57397/00, 6168/99 AND I.A.NO.2255 OF 2008 IN O.P.NO.3668/99 CLOSED. 17.2.2009 SD/- S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ O.P.No. 3668 OF 1999 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner in this original petition challenges a seniority list in which he has been placed below respondents 5 to 7. Now it turns out that the Government themselves had revised that seniority list and the petitioner has been put above respondents 5 to 7. The validity of the select list prepared pursuant to such revision of seniority list is now pending consideration in W.P.(C) No.17247/06. That being so, there is no point in now considering this original petition on merits. Accordingly, this original petition is closed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner or respondents 5 to 7 to pursue their contentions on the question of seniority in W.P.(C) No.17247/06. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd