IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2011 / 5TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 20513 of 2011(L) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- ANILKUMAR. K, AGED 41 YEARS, KAVUVILAVEEDU, EDAKKULAM, DEVI NAGER- III PEROORKADA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.(WORKING AS BINDER, SECRETARIAT CENTRAL LIBRARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) BY ADV. SRI.L.RAJESH NARAYAN IYER RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, GENERL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, THAIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN- 695 001. 2. SECRETARY, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (SERVICES-C) DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN- 695 001. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/07/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.20513/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 16/7/2002 P2 COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE SENIORITY LIST DATED 19/12/03. P3 COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 15/1/2004. P4 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 7/5/10. P5 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21/6/10. P6 COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 15/3/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.20513 of 2011-L. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 27th July, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is presently working as a Binder in the Secretariat central library under the General Administration Department (GAD). This writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P5 order dated 21.6.2010 whereby the petition preferred by the petitioner under Section 27B of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules (KS & SSR) was dismissed. Even according to the contentions raised in this writ petition, on 19.12.2003 a seniority list of Peons of the Administrative Secretariat as on 31.3.2003 was published and the petitioner was assigned rank No.653. The contention of the petitioner is that aggrieved by the assignment of the above seniority list he had submitted Ext.P3 representation on 15.1.2004. Subsequently, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P4 representation on 7.5.2010. Ext.P4 representation was WP(C).No.20513/2011-L. 2 rejected as per Ext.P5 order dated 21.6.2010. Evidently, the reason assigned for rejecting the request of the petitioner is that he has challenged the seniority list dated 26.9.2003 only after about six years. It is challenging Ext.P5 that this writ petition has been filed. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that after the publication of Ext.P2 dated 19.12.2003 he had submitted Ext.P3 representation dated 15.1.2004 and it is the inaction on Ext.P3 that that constrained him to submit Ext.P4 representation dated 7.5.2010. Even if the contention raised by the petitioner that he had earlier, preferred a representation as early as on 15.1.2004 is taken as correct, then also the petitioner is guilty of laches and lapses. The petitioner did not have a case that the said petition alleged to have been filed on 15.1.2004 was persued. Subsequent filing of Ext.P4 representation dated 7.5.2010 cannot revive a stale claim. Therefore, the petitioner cannot now raise grievance against Ext.P5. The reason assigned in Ext.P5 WP(C).No.20513/2011-L. 3 cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal warranting interference. Allowing the petitioner to persue with such a stale claim would be against the settled position of law that a settled seniority cannot be permitted to be unsettled after an inordinate, long delay. In the said circumstance I am of the view that Ext.P5 does not invite any interference. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. C.T. RAVIKUMAR, (Judge) Kvs/-