IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2009 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1931 WA.No. 1246 of 2006(E) ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.8645/1999 Dated 20/12/2005 .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS --------------------- 1. P. SANJEEVAN, S/O. PUSHKARAN, FINGER PRINT EXPERTS, S.D.F.P. BUREAU, IDUKKI. 2. P. SASIDHARA KURUP, S/O. PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, FINGER PRINT EXPERTS, TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (HOME DEPARTMENT),TRIVANDRUM. 2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, TRIVANDRUM. 3. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, S.C.R.B. (M & W), TRIVANDRUM. 4. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, CRIME INVESTIGATION, TRIVANDRUM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT.R.BINDU THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------ W.A.No.1246 OF 2006 ------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellants are the petitioners in O.P.No.8645/1999. The Original Petition was filed by them challenging Ext.P8 final seniority list of Finger Print Searchers as on 31.3.1986 and also Ext.P14 order of the Government dated 15.1.1999 rejecting their representation against Ext.P8. 2. In Ext.P8 seniority list, the petitioners are Serial Nos.26, 27and 28. Their immediate seniors (Serial Nos. 23, 24 and 25) are direct recruitees through the PSC. The appellants are transfer appointees. Ext.P6 Special Rules provide a ratio of 1:1 between direct recruitment and transfer appointment. So, according to the appellants, on application of that ratio the Serial No.26 should have been put in the place of Serial No.24 and in that manner they should have been accommodated among the direct recruitees in the ratio of 1:1, instead, all the direct recruitees are put in a block above them. The same is contrary to W.A.No.1246/2006 2 the appointment contemplated under the Special Rules, it is submitted. They also relied on Ext.P7 Government Order dated 12.10.1983 in support of their submission. But, we notice that Note 3 has been added to Rule 5 of Part II KS & SSR with effect from 2.3.1993. The said Note reads as follows: “Note 3:- Whenever a ratio or percentage is fixed for different methods of recruitment/appointment to a post the number of vacancies to be filled up by candidates from each method shall be decided by applying the fixed ratio or percentage to the cadre strength of the post to which the recruitment/transfer is made and not to the vacancies existing at that time.” In the light of the said Rule, the ratio has to be applied to the cadre strength. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in Prakash v. Kurien [1999 (2) KLT 710], the claim made by the appellants is plainly untenable. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the technical ground of delay. But, we find that on merits also, the appellants do not have a case. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) ps