IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2009 / 22ND POUSHA 1930 WA.No.1002 of 2007 ------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.21019/2006 Dated 21/03/2007 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ---------------------------- A.U. BABY PAUL, ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER (RETIRED), HARIPAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI SMT.SABINA JAYAN RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION COMMITTEE FOR PROMOTION TO THE POST OF DEO, REPRESENTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. 4. JOSEPH MARTIN V.DEO, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 5. MOHAMMED SHAFI DEO, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 6. HAMSA P., ADDL.DIRECTOR, PLANNING OFFICE OF THE DPI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. WA.No.1002/2007 ...2... 7. MOHANAN.P.V., DEO, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BENNY GERVASIS THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ. ------------------------------------------ Writ Appeal No.1002 OF 2007 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 12th day of January, 2009. J U D G M E N T Kurian Joseph, J. The appellant is the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.21019/2006. The grievance is mainly with regard to seniority of H.S.As for the period from 01.01.1976 to 31.12.1976. According to the appellant-petitioner, he being older in age when compared to respondents 4 to 7 advised on 26.06.1976, he should be ranked above them. 2. Learned Single Judge, on verification of records, has held that the petitioner has been ranked below respondents 4 to 7 in the ranked list of the Public Service Commission and hence he cannot claim seniority above them. The contention of the appellant-petitioner is that going by Exhibit P1 Rules of Seniority, the persons advised on the same day have to be grouped together and the older in age has to be ranked first. We are W.A.No.1002/2007 2 afraid, that contention cannot be appreciated in view of the second proviso to Rule 27(a) of Part II KS&SSR, which reads as follows: “Provided further that the seniority of persons advised for appointment to the same category of post in a Department on the same date by different District Offices/District Units of the Public Service Commission and the seniority of persons advised for appointment to different posts which constitute feeder categories of higher post in a department on the same date by the Public Service Commission shall be decided as follows:- (i) When not more than one person is advised for appointment from each District, on the basis of their age, the older being declared senior to the younger. (ii) When more than one person is advised for appointment the persons having the same serial number in the various advice list shall be grouped together separately and the interse- seniority in each group shall be fixed on the basis of their age, the older being declared senior to the younger”. 3. The serial number of the appellant-petitioner in Exhibit R2(a) is 172. According to the appellant, it is a combined list of Teachers, Lower Division Clerks and Peons in Malappuram District. But, we find from Exhibit R2(a) that, from serial W.A.No.1002/2007 3 numbers 41 to 193 candidates have been advised on the same day and all of them belong to the category of H.S.A in various subjects. If that be so, the appellant cannot claim any benefit over the party respondents who are ranked above him. 4. Sri.Rajasekharan Pillai, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, pointed out that Exhibit P7 seniority list has never seen the light and it has been produced only during the pendency of the writ petition and that it is full of mistakes. A specific ground also has been taken in that regard in the writ petition. But, as rightly pointed out by the learned Single Judge, the affected parties are not before us and hence this Court will not be justified in going to the validity or otherwise of the seniority list as such. The parties before us are only respondents 4 to 7 and going by the principles referred to us above, they are ranked above the appellant in the category of H.S.A in Malappuram District and hence the appellant is not entitled to be ranked above respondents 4 to 7 in the seniority list. Thus, there is no merit in the writ appeal. We fully agree with the findings of the learned Single Judge. Therefore, this W.A.No.1002/2007 4 appeal is dismissed making it clear that the judgment will not stand in the way of the writ petitioner approaching the Government under Rule 27B of Part II KS & SSR. KURIAN JOSEPH JUDGE P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE smp W.A.No.1002/2007 5 KURIAN JOSEPH & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ. W.A. No. 1002 OF 2007 J U D G M E N T 12.01.2009