IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2011 / 6TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 20633 of 2011(D) --------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. K.KASILINGAM, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.KALIAPPAN,ASIPF,RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, (ADDL. SUB INSPECTOR, PROTECTION FORCE) SOUTHERN RAILWAY,SALEM. 2. M.N.PRASAD,ASIPF,RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE (ADDL. SUB INSPECTOR, PROTECTION FORCE) RAILWAY QUARTERS NO.70D,THRISSUR. BY SRI.M.M.ABDUL AZIZ, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADVS. SRI.M.G.ANON, SRI.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, CHENNAI, PIN - 600 001. BY SRI. MUHAMMED SHAH, S.C, RAILWAYS. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/07/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).NO.20633/2011-D: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN O.P.NO.12361/2002. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT APPEAL NO.346/2006. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST OF ASST. SUB INSPECTORS IN RPF (SOUTHERN RAILWAY AS ON 1/1/2008. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C).NO.12168/07. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 20633 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are presently working as Assistant Sub Inspectors in the Railway Protection Force under the Southern Railway. Earlier, raising grievances against Ext.P4 in the matter of fixation of their seniority the petitioners have approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.12168/2007. After considering the rival contentions this Court set aside Ext.P4 and directed for re-fixation of the seniority of the first petitioner in the cadre of Assistant Sub Inspector. This writ petition has now, been filed on being aggrieved by the issuance of Ext.P6 notification before such re-fixation of the seniority pursuant to Ext.P5 judgment in W.P(C) No. 12168/2007 dated 11.4.2011. As per Ext.P6 notification dated 14.7.2011 for conducting selection to fill up 18 vacancies in the post of Sub Inspector(Protection Force). It is contended that juniors to the petitioners were also included in the zone of consideration. The contention of the first petitioner is that respondents have not taken into consideration the specific WPC.No.20633/2011 : 2 : direction in Ext.P5 and therefore, the action on the part of the respondents in including his juniors and, at the same time, excluding him from the field of consideration is against the directions in Ext.P5 and therefore, liable to be interfered with. As regards the second petitioner, it is contended that he is similarly situated to the first petitioner and as such he is also entitled to get the benefits flowing from Ext.P5 judgment. Evidently, the grievance of the first petitioner is against the action to conduct selection to the post of Sub Inspector in RPF without re-fixing his seniority after taking into consideration the direction in Ext.P5 to fix his seniority in the cadre of ASI (Railway Protection Force). The contention is that fixation of seniority in tune with the direction in Ext.P5 would definitely fetch the first petitioner's seniority over several persons who are now included in the zone of consideration for filling up the vacancies pursuant to Ext.P6. In the case of the second petitioner it is contended that since he is similarly situated person and a consideration in the light of Ext.P5 would definitely fetch him seniority over the persons who are now included in the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Sub Inspector pursuant to Ext.P6. Since the grievance of WPC.No.20633/2011 : 3 : the first petitioner is that in tune with the directions in Ext.P5 the respondent has not so far taken any decision and in the case of the second petitioner, he is also similarly situated to the first petitioner and therefore, he is also entitled to the benefits flowing from Ext.P5, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of. True that the persons who are already included in Ext.P6 are not made parties in this writ petition. However, in view of the order I propose to pass in this writ petition, I think the petitioner need not be directed to take steps for bringing persons included in Ext.P6 as parties to this writ petition at this stage. I am of the view that the inter-se seniority of the petitioners and the persons included in Ext.P6 who are allegedly juniors to the petitioners are to be settled at the first instance by the respondent. Going by Ext.P5 judgment the respondent is the authority to consider seniority. In the said circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to consider the question of re-fixation of seniority of the petitioners with notice to those who are included in the zone of consideration for filling up the vacancies pursuant to Ext.P6 after taking into account Ext.P5, WPC.No.20633/2011 : 4 : and take appropriate steps for fixing the seniority. This shall be done expeditiously, at any rate, before effecting promotion to the post of Sub Inspector pursuant to Ext.P6 notification. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge