IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2011 / 13TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 15573 of 2006(D) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- K. CHANDRADAS, L.D. CLERK, TALUK OFFICE, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM. BY SMT.V.P.SEEMANDINI, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. SMT.S.KARTHIKA. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (C) DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, LAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.ANTONY MUKKATH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 15573 of 2006(D) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.78/02/RD DATED 11/01/2002. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 23/01/2002 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 08/06/2002 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PROVISIONAL SENIORITY LIST ALONG WITH THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 08/05/2003. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 04/09/2004 OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ALONG WITH THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE SENIORITY LIST FROM 01/01/2002 TO 31/12/2002. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 01/05/2004 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10/12/2003 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 04/10/2000 IN O.P. NO. 16833/1998. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 23/04/1998 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER THROUGH PROPER CHANNEL TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13/03/2002 IN O.P. NO.15736/2000. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 15573 of 2006 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 4th day of August, 2011. J U D G M E N T While the petitioner was working as an electricity worker in the Kerala State Electricity Board, he was selected and appointed as L.D. Clerk in the Revenue Department through the Public Service Commission on 12.3.1998. The petitioner sought extension of time for joining duty by 45 days, which was granted. By that time he had to undergo an emergent operation and therefore he applied for extension of joining time by an year. That was not considered and pursuant to the same, the advice and appointment were cancelled. The petitioner challenged the same by filing O.P.No. 16835/1998, in which this Court passed Ext.P8 judgment dated 4.10.2000 directing reconsideration of the issue in accordance with the findings therein. Pursuant thereto, Ext.P1 order dated 11.1.2002 was passed granting the petitioner extension of joining time. But, it was stated therein that his seniority will be reckoned only with effect from the date of joining duty under Rule 27(c) of the K.S and S.S.R. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Ext.P3 representation dated 8.6.2002 seeking seniority in service with effect from 12th March, 1999, which would have been the date of his joining, if the respondents had granted the extension of time for joining duty at the appropriate time. That was rejected by Ext.P7 order holding that the petitioner is entitled to seniority only with effect from 4.2.2002, which is his actual date of joining. Ext.P7 order was passed on 10.12.2003 The petitioner has filed this writ W.P(C) No. 15573 of 2006 -: 2 :- petition on 14.6.2006 seeking the following reliefs: “a. issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, to quash Ext.P1 and P2 to the extent of not ordering notional seniority to the petitioner in the LDC cadre w.e.f. 12.3.1999; b. issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, to quash Ext.P7 based on the fundamental principle that the 1st respondent should not be permitted to take advantage of its own wrong and that no Government servant should be denied seniority in a particular cadre post, for no fault of theirs; c. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to include the name of the petitioner in Ext.P4 seniority list as Sl. No. 2616 A in between Sl. Nos. 2616 and 2617; d. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to include the name of the petitioner in appropriate place in the U.D.C./final seniority list counting his seniority in the U.D. Post w.e.f. 22.12.2002; e) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to assign notional seniority to the petitioner in the L.D.C and U.D.C cadre posts w.e.f. 13.3.1999 and 22.12.2002 respectively and to count that seniority in those cadre post for all service benefits including right for promotion to posts above that of U.D.C.” 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent controverting the contentions of the petitioner. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. The petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs prayed for, for more than one reason. First is of delay. Ext.P1 order was passed as early as on 11.1.2002. The petitioner is W.P(C) No. 15573 of 2006 -: 3 :- challenging that order to the extent it regulates his seniority only with effect from the date he actually joined duty pursuant to Ext.P1, on 4.2.2002. Further, Ext.P7 order was passed as early as on 10.12.2003 and the petitioner is challenging the same only on 14.6.2006. Lastly, the petitioner has not chosen to implead in this writ petition any of the persons over whom he seeks seniority, who have a right to be heard on the claim of the petitioner for seniority over them. 5. Apart from the same, admittedly till the petitioner joined duty in the Revenue Department pursuant to Ext.P1 order, the petitioner was actually working in the Kerala State Electricity Board. If seniority is given to the petitioner with effect from 19.9.1999, that would mean that the petitioner was an employee of both Electricity Board and Revenue Department at the same time, which situation cannot be countenanced in law. For the above reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/