IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2009 / 31ST BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 26066 of 2009(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. T.M. VARGHESE,CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, SPECIAL CELL, ERNAKULAM. 2. REJO P. JOSEPH, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, SPECIAL CELL, ERNAKULAM. 3. V.A.NISHADMON, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHANGANAHCERRY POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM. 4. V.A. ULLAS, INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU SPECIAL CELL, ERNAKULAM. 5. A.M. SIDDIQUE, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SIO-2, CBCID, ERNAKULAM. 6. P.V. RAMESH, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALAKKAD TOWN (NORTH) POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 7. R.MANOJKUMAR, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANNARKKAD POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 8. V.A. KRISHNADAS, CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 9. SUNNY CHACKO, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PATTAMBI POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 10. K.C. BABU, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADAKKENCHERRY POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. WP(C).No. 26066 of 2009 -2- BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN SMT.DHANYA CHANDRAN SRI.T.S.SHYAM PRASANTH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOMES DEPT. GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KERALA, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION COMMITTEE (LOWER), HOME DEPARTMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER AND SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SR.GP ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/09/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).26066/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioners were advised by the Public Service Commission for appointment as Sub Inspector of Police (General Executive Branch). The said post is to be filled up by direct recruitment and promotion in the ratio 50 :50. It seems that there was no direct recruitment between the period 1996 - 2002. But nevertheless, 1210 persons were appointed as Sub Inspector of Police by promotion during the said period. It is contended that 605 vacancies ought to have been filled up by direct recruitment. But those vacancies were also filled up by persons appointed on promotion, in gross excess of the quota that is available for promotion. 2. The issue had reached this Court earlier in Achutan v. Director General of Police (2008 (2) KLT 655), and this Court had issued certain directions to the Director General of Police. It has been directed as follows in paragraph 20 of the judgment. W.P.(C).26066/09 2 In the result, while upholding the general principles laid down in Ext.P22 as such, I direct the 2nd respondent to specifically consider the following aspects and pass appropriate orders: (a).What were the total number of vacancies in the post of Sub Inspectors (General Executive Branch) available in January 2000 and upto December 2002. (b).What were the number of vacancies that were available in the 50% quota that had to be set apart for promotees. (c).Whether there were adequate number of vacancies in the quota set apart for promotees to absorb the petitioners in service as Sub Inspectors of Police on a regular basis. (d).Depending upon the answers to the issues mentioned above, the Director General of Police may issue suitable directions for re- assignment of seniority of the concerned persons in the post of Sub Inspector of Police and such orders shall be passed notwithstanding Ext.P22. (e).If the petitioners' claims are accepted, consequential orders may be passed. (f).Such orders shall be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. W.P.(C).26066/09 3 (g).A representative of the petitioners shall also be heard before orders are passed by the Director General of Police. 3. It seems that pursuant to the directions, objections were filed to the provisional seniority list for the post of Sub Inspector of Police. But it has been finalized essentially observing that the persons recruited after 2002 have no locus standi to challenge the promotion effected prior to their advise. 4. Petitioners have now preferred appeals under Rule 27B of Part-II of the KS & SSR challenging the final seniority list. These are pending before the Government as Exts.P3 to P12. This writ petition has been filed seeking appropriate directions in relation to Exts.P3 to P12. 5. I heard learned Government Pleader also. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the directions issued in Achutan have not been kept in mind in the course of finalizing the seniority list of Sub Inspector of Police. The right of direct recruits to challenge the date of effect of promotion given to persons, in excess of the quota that was W.P.(C).26066/09 4 available for promotees, he contends, has been practically upheld in Achutan and therefore, the objections raised in this regard ought not to have been rejected on the ground that they were recruited subsequent to the provisional promotion of Sub Inspector's, which may have been effected in excess of the quota that was available for promotees. 6. Learned Government Pleader submits that appeals shall be looked into bearing in mind the principles which are mentioned in Achutan. 7. In the result, writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Exts.P3 to P12 after hearing the affected persons also, as early as possible, at any rate, on or before 25.3.2010. Further promotion to the post of Circle Inspector of police pursuant to Ext.P1, shall be effected only after orders are passed on Exts.P3 to P12. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs