IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 6TH JUNE 2011 / 16TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 19575 of 2007(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. RAMACHANDRAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, AGED 31 YEARS, RESIDING AT KOTHILA, NEDUKALUR, CHUZHANI P.O., SREEKANDAPURAM, KANNUR DISTRICT. PEON, CHERUVATHUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, CHERUVATHUR P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. MANOJ K.V., AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.DAMODARAN, RESIDING AT JYOTHIS, CHEDI ROAD, UPPILIKAI, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. PEON, OFFICE OF THE ASST.DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, CIVIL STATION, VIDYA NAGAR P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 3. MOHANAN NAMBIAR, S/O.MADHAVAN NAIR, AGED 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT PADY, P.O.EDNEER. CHENGLA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PEON, CHENGLA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, KASARGOD. 4. THE ASST.DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH VIDYANAGAR P.O., KASARGOD. 5. CHERUVATHUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, CHERUVATHUR P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 6. THE CHENGLA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CHENGLA P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.ANTONY MUKKATH FOR R2-4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 19575/07. APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).No. 11221/05 OF THIS COURT. P2. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.26.10.06 OF R1. P3. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.13.2.06 OF DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT. P4. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.20.11.06 OF R3. P5. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.6.3.06 OF R3. P6. COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER DTD.3.8.06. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 19575 of 2007 ================== Dated this the 6 th day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are lower grade employees in the service of the Department of Panchayat in the Government of Kerala. They aspire for promotion to the post of Lower Division Clerks, in Kasargod district. According to them, there are vacancies of Lower Division Clerks in Kasargod district. A rank list has been prepared by the 3 rd respondent from among the persons like the petitioners for promotion to the post of Lower Division Clerks. Petitioners' grievance in this writ petition is that although the petitioners are qualified for such promotion, the 3 rd respondent is not promoting the petitioners to the post of Lower Division Clerks. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking the following relief: “Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ direction or order directing the 3rd Respondent to promote and post the petitioners as lower division clerk under the 3rd Respondent.” 2. A counter affidavit has been filed, in which, it is submitted that from the separate rank lists prepared from peons and full time/part time contingent employees, two persons from the seniority list of Peons and one person from the seniority list of full time/part time contingent employees were promoted as Lower Division Clerks. But thereafter this Court passed an interim order dated 7.2.2007 in W.P. w.p.c.19575/07 2 (C).No.32167/2006 staying such promotions to the post of Lower Division Clerks. So, according to them, they are only obeying the orders of this Court in that writ petition by stopping promotion to the post of Lower Division Clerks. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. I called for the judgment in W.P.(C). No.32167/2006. I find that the same is a common judgment in respect of other writ petitions also. The said judgment reads thus: “Connected Writ Petitions are filed challenging proposed amendment to Kerala Panchayath Subordinate Service (Special) Rules providing for 5 per cent reservation to part-time, and full time contingent staff of the Panchayaths for promotion to the post of Lower Division Clerks. Petitioners are peons who are also given 5 per cent reservation along with part-time and full time contingent staff. According to the petitioners, entire 10% should be reserved for peons as they have undergone a selection process by PSC prior to their appointment, whereas part-time and full time contingent staff are not comparable to them. The challenge pertains to appointments in two Districts, and it is stated in Court that in all other Districts the proposed amendment is implemented and there is no challenge against the same. In any case, since challenge is only against proposed amendment, I dispose of the Writ Petitions directing the Government to finalise the matter pertaining to amendment of Special Rules. If amendment is adverse to petitioners or any other party, they are free to approach this Court. There will be direction to the respondents not to fill up 10% vacancies of LDCs by persons from any of the categories of Peons, part-time and full time contingent staff until amendment is carried out. Government is directed to decide on amendment within three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioners.” Therefore, I am of opinion that this writ petition can be disposed of in terms of that judgment. Accordingly, if the Government has already taken a decision on the amendment as directed in that judgment, further action as directed in that judgment shall be taken on w.p.c.19575/07 3 the basis of the said decision and if no decision has been taken yet, that judgment shall be implemented forthwith. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge