IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HON'BLE Ag. CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2011/30TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WA.No. 1930 of 2011 ( ) AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WPC.20513/2011 DATED 27-07-2011 APPELLANT(S) ANILKUMAR.K., AGED 41 YEARS, KAVUVILAVEEDU, EDAKKULAM, DEVI NAGAR-III, PEROORKADA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV.SRI.L.RAJESH NARAYAN RESPONDENT(S) 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. SECRETARY, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (SERVICES-C) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-12-2011 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MANJULA CHELLUR, Ag.C.J & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.A.No. 1930 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Ramachandra Menon, J. The appellant is stated as aggrieved by the verdict passed by the learned Single Judge declining interference with regard to the claim preferred as to proper placement in the seniority list, which was published years back. 2. The appellant/writ petitioner was working as a binder in the Secretariat Central Library under the General Administration Department and that the seniority list was published as early as on 19.12.2003. It is stated that, immediately after publication of the seniority list, the petitioner preferred a representation under Rule 27B of Part-II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, raising his objection to the placement given. Despite filing of the said representation, nothing transpired in positive for nearly six years. It was in the said circumstance that, the appellant/writ petitioner preferred another representation, WA.1930/11 2 produced as Exhibit P4, on 7.5.2010. The said application was considered by the concerned authority and rejected as per Exhibit P5 order dated 21.6.2010 holding that it was not liable to be entertained as belated. This made the appellant to approach this Court by filing the Writ Petition for redressal of the grievance. 3. After considering the sequence of events, the learned Judge observed that the course and conduct pursued by the writ petitioner were self explanatory and the Writ Petition was filed to project a stale claim. Even the version of the writ petitioner that he had preferred Exhibit P3 representation way back on 15.1.2004 was accepted, the next representation, i.e., Exhibit P4 came to be filed still after a period of six years and it was thereafter that the petitioner approached this Court by filing the Writ Petition in the year 2011. Interference was declined in the said circumstance and the Writ Petition was dismissed as not liable to be entertained. 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant at length and so also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 5. No material has been produced by the appellant to substantiate the factum of filing either Exhibit P1 or Exhibit P3 WA.1930/11 3 representation/objection, but for the mere averments raised in the Writ Petition as well as in the appeal. It is also relevant to note that, neither Exhibit P1 nor Exhibit P3 is seen preferred by the appellant 'through proper channel' and no receipt, acknowledgment whatsoever has been produced so as to support the filing of the said proceedings. That apart, the admitted fact remains that, after filing Exhibit P3, it took nearly six years for the appellant/writ petitioner to file Exhibit P4 and thereafter to approach this Court with regard to the claim for correcting the alleged mistake in the seniority list published in the year 2003. We find that the claim put forward by the appellant is a stale one and the seniority list has already become final. 6. Settled position cannot be unsettled, is the settled law, as made clear by the Apex Court in the decision reported in Bhoop Singh v. Union of India (AIR 1992 SC 1414). So also, the appellant was simply sleeping over his rights, if any, and in such circumstances, no interference is warranted in exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in view of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Rabindra Nath v. Union of India (AIR 1970 SC 470). WA.1930/11 4 In the above circumstances, we find that there is absolutely no merit so as to call for interference with the verdict passed by the learned Single Judge. The Writ Appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. MANJULA CHELLUR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE vgs