IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2011 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 26965 of 2011(U) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ GEETHAMANI ANTHARJANAM, HEALTH SUPERVISOR, COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE, MUTHUKULAM, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-690 560. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 3. HAMSA ISMAIL, DEPUTY DISTRICT EDUCATION & MEDICAL OFFICER, DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICE, WAYANAD-673 001. R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER MR.E.M. ABDUL KHADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/10/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 26965 of 2011(U) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF ORDER DTD. 13.3.1997. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE DTD. 3.2.1998. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 26.11.2002. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF ORDER DTD. 6.2.2003. EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DTD. 28.7.2006 IN WPC NO.19872/2006. EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF ORDER DTD. 17.7.2007. EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DTD. 24.11.03 IN W.A. NO.2284/2000. EXT.P8 : TRUE COPY OF SENIORITY LIST DTD. 23.8.2004. EXT.P9 : TRUE COPY OF SENIORITY LIST PUBLISHED ON 24.12.2004. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF PROMOTION ORDER DTD. 30.12.2004. EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF SENIORITY LIST PUBLISHED ON 28.2.2007. EXT.P12: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DTD. 12.11.2010 IN WPC NO.32127/2010. EXT.P13: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DTD. 14.3.2011. EXT.P14: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DTD. 18.3.2011. EXT.P15: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WA NO.108/2011. EXT.P16: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DTD.27.8.2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 26965 of 2011 – U ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers: 1.“To issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext.P13 final seniority llist to the extent to which it shows the petitioner was shown as junior to the 3rd respondent; 2. to issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext.P16 promotion order to the extent to which it promotes the 3rd respondent and not promoting the petitioner to the post of Deputy District Education and Media Officer; 3.To declare that the petitioner is entitled to get seniority as Sl.No.16A in Ext.P13 seniority list, and to get promotion to the post of Deputy District Education and Media Officer on that basis; 4.To declare that the petitioner is entitled to get seniority as per the date of PSC advice as per Ext.P3 untrammelled by Ext.P9 and P11; 2 W.P.(C) No.26965/2011 5.To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 9 to promote the petitioner to the post of Deputy District Education and Media Officer by assigning seniority to him over and above the 3rd respondent, i.e. as No. 16A in Ext.P13. 6.To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to revert the 3rd repondent and to promote the petitioner to the post of Deputy District Education and Media Officer; 7.To issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to consider and opass orders on Ext.P14 statutory representation within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court; 8.To issue such other orders, directions or writ as may be prayed for and that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit on the facts and circumstances of the case”. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who is working as Health Supervisor is qualified to be promoted as Dy.District Education and Media Officer and 3 W.P.(C) No.26965/2011 has applied for the same. Her grievance is against Ext.P13 final seniority list wherein the 3rd respondent has been wrongly placed above the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner took necessary steps to have it challenged by filing Ext.P14, which is a statutory proceeding under Rule 27B of Part II of K.S & S.S.R. and the same is pending consideration. When the seniority of the petitioner was fixed earlier, she had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.19872 of 2006, which was disposed of as per Ext.P5 judgment. In compliance with the direction therein, the seniority list of the petitioner was corrected and assigned as '16A' in the integrated seniority list in place of Sl.No.119 given earlier. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.32127 of 2010 which was disposed of as per Ext.P12 judgment; which in turn was subjected to challenge by filing Writ Appeal No. 108 of 2011 preferred by petitioner. The said appeal was disposed of as per Ext.P15, making it clear that, it was open for the appellant/petitioner to have the final seniority list challenged by pursuing the statutory remedy before the appropriate authority. The learned counsel for the petitioner 4 W.P.(C) No.26965/2011 submits that the said statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner as borne by Ext.P14 is still to be finalised, despite the specific observation made by this Court as per Ext.P15; without which, promotion has been given to the 3rd respondent. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. No notice is necessary to the 3rd respondent, for the time being, in view of the limited nature of the relief proposed to be given. 4. After hearing both sides, this Court finds that proceedings shall be taken to a logical conclusion so as to give effect to the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in Ext.P15. In the said circumstance, the first respondent is directed to consider and finalise Ext.P14 appeal preferred by the petitioner against Ext.P13 final seniority list and appropriate orders shall be passed in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The rights and liberties of the parties concerned will depend upon the order so to be passed by the 1st respondent on Ext.P14. It is made clear that, before finalising the proceedings as above, an opportunity of hearing shall be given to the petitioner as well 5 W.P.(C) No.26965/2011 as the 3rd respondent, to substantiate the respective contentions with regard to the issue. The writ petition is disposed of. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. rka