IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2010 / 8TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23921 of 2010(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.K.RAJAN, UPPER DIVISION CLERK, OFFICE OF DEPUTY DIRECTOR (EDUCATION), THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. SRI.R.GIREESH VARMA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001 2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, OFFICE OF DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, JAGATHY P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ARAVIND KUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P(C)No.23921 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated 30th July, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is presently working as an Upper Division Clerk (Higher Grade) in the office of the Deputy Director (Education), Thiruvalla. He was originally recruited as Lower Division Clerk in Alappuzha District. He joined duty in the said post on 16.4.1984. Upon the formation of Pathanamthitta District, employees working in Alappuzha and Kollam Districts were given the right to opt the new District and according to the petitioner, persons who exercised option and got transfer and posting based on such option were all allowed to retain their original seniority even in the new District. However, the petitioner was arbitrarily discriminated in the matter and on his transfer based on such option his seniority was not retained as assured in the relevant orders. Subsequently, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk and then he was given higher grade as well. Later, the petitioner was removed from the seniority list as per order dated 17.1.2002 citing the reason that he had not completed two years in the L.D.C cadre. In short, the petitioner was thus reverted based on the decision not to reckon the past service of the petitioner rendered in Alappuzha District. The contention of the WP(C).No.23921/2010 2 petitioner is that similarly circumstanced transferees were allowed to retain their original seniority in Pathanamthitta District. Therefore, according to the petitioner, it is nothing but a hostile discrimination. The representations submitted by the petitioner were not properly considered by the respondents. In the said circumstances, the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.30262 of 2009. The same was dismissed by this Court. However, in appeal preferred as W.A.No.2840 of 2009 this Court granted the petitioner the liberty to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with the statutory rules. But, the petitioner has wrongly approached the Chief Minister. However, it was rightly referred to the first respondent on 11.3.2010 as is obvious from Ext.P2(b). In short, the representation moved by the petitioner availing the liberty granted as per the judgment in W.A.No.2840 of 2009, is now pending before the first respondent. According to the petitioner, any further delay in the matter of disposal of the said representation would be prejudicial to his prospects as he is to retire from service on 31.3.2011. Therefore, the petitioner prays that the first respondent may be directed to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2(s) expeditiously. Evidently, the petitioner has moved Ext.P2(a) representation in the light of the judgment of this Court in WP(C).No.23921/2010 3 W.A.No.2840 of 2009. Therefore, the first respondent is bound to consider and pass orders thereon. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2(a) representation dated 6.3.2010 expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. However, since the issue involved in the said representation pertains to the seniority, before passing any order, persons who are likely to be affected in the event of an order being passed in favour of the petitioner shall also be put on notice. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS