IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 29TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 9558 of 2004(K) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------- K.P.AMBIKA KUMARI, COMPOSITOR GRADE I, GOVERNMENT CENTRAL PRESS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.C.MADHAVAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DIRECTOR OF PRINTING, PRINTING DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. P.N.GOPALAKRISHNA PANICKER, COMPOSITOR GRADE I, GOVERNMENT CENTRAL PRESS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. T.MERCY, COMPOSITOR GRADE I, GOVERNMENT CENTRAL PRESS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.9558/2004 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE MEMO NO.1349/90/GPK DT. 13.12.90 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT, GOVT. PRESS, KOZHIKODE. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 29.1.96, NO.5455/95/E3, ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.5455/95/E3 DT. 3.5.96 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.15557/99/E23 DT. 28.8.99 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5:- COPY OF THE EXTRACT FROM THE PROVISIONAL GRADATION LIST DT. 11.4.96 SHOWING THE SENUIORITY POSITION AS ON 1.1.94 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT OF THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4. EXT.P6:- COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT FROM THE FINAL GRADATION LIST DT. 8.10.98 SHOWING THE SENIORITY POSITION OF THE PETITIONER VIS-A-VIS RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 ON 1.1.94. EXT.P7:- COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT FROM THE FINAL GRADATION LIST DT. 27TH MARCH 2002 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT SHOWING THE SENIORITY POSITION OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P8:- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 21.3.02 FROM THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER IN REPLY TO THE OBJECTIONS TO THE PROVISIONAL LIST. EXT.P9:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 24.10.02 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE GOVERNMENT AGAINST EXT.P7 SENIORITY LIST. EXT.P10:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 21.7.03 IN WPC. NO.23086/03. EXT.P11:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 18.8.03 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE GOVERNMENT SUBMITTING EXT.P10 JUDGMENT. EXT.P12:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 23.8.03 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P13:- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 27.8.03 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE SIT RESPONDENT, IN REPLY TO EXT.P12. EXT.P14:- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 17.1.04 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P15:- COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.1015/D2/92/P&ARD DT. 15.1.92 ISSUED BY THE PERSONNEL & ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS (D) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE tss K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 9558 OF 2004 K -------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th February, 2008 JUDGMENT Case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: Petitioner was appointed as Compositor Grade II by Ext.P1 dated 13.12.1990 in Government Press, Wayanad. On completion of five years, she made a request and obtained transfer to the Thiruvananthapuram District. She came to be promoted as Compositor Grade I vide Ext.P3 dated 3.5.1996, with effect from 1.5.1996. Later on, by Ext.P4, it was found that the petitioner was entitled to be promoted with effect from 1.4.1996. A seniority list was published as Ext.P6. Therein, the petitioner is shown as senior to respondents 3 and 4. Still later, a provisional seniority list was published on 18.1.2001. According to petitioner, she preferred a representation dated 3.1.2002. That came to be rejected by Ext.P8. It is thereafter that Ext.P7 final seniority list was published. Then the petitioner preferred a representation against Ext.P8 as Ext.P9. WPC. 9558/04 K 2 This Court directed vide Ext.P10, the matter to be considered. Petitioner preferred Ext.P11 before the Government pursuant to Ext.P10 Judgment. She also preferred Ext.P12 before the Director of Printing. Ext.P14 is the order passed by the Government. In Ext.P14, what is stated is that the petitioner took inter-district transfer on her request and she is entitled to seniority only on the date on which the petitioner joined duty at Thiruvananthapuram. But, in respect of respondents 3 and 4, it is stated that they were transferred on public interest. Petitioner challenges Ext.P14 and seeks an order quashing Ext.P14 as also Exts.P8 and P13. She also seeks a declaration that she is senior to respondents 3 and 4 both in the categories of Compositor Grade I and Compositor Grade II and that her seniority as on 1.1.1994 settled as per Ext.P6 has become final as declared therein and that settled seniority cannot be unsettled after a long number of years. She further seeks a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to assign her due rank and seniority in the categories of Compositor Grade I and Compositor Grade II over respondents WPC. 9558/04 K 3 3 and 4 in Ext.P7 list and give her further promotions based on that seniority and rank. 2. I heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader. It is pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner that it is clear from Ext.P3 that the third respondent had secured inter-district transfer on his request. He points out that this is further clear from the fact that Ext.P3 would show that the third respondent was not given joining time. He would therefore submit that the entire premise on which Ext.P14 was passed is patently false. He would, therefore, submit that this is a case where while the petitioner is entitled to seniority only based on the service after she joined duty in Thiruvananthapuram, respondents 3 and 4 also are entitled likewise. Counsel contends that respondents 3 and 4 joined duty only after the petitioner joined duty in Thiruvananthapuram District. Learned Government Pleader does not dispute the factual contention taken by the petitioner WPC. 9558/04 K 4 that respondents 3 and 4 were also transferred on their request. He is also unable to dispute the fact that they were not transferred on public interest, which is what is stated in Ext.P14. He submitted that respondents 3 and 4 were indeed transferred on their request on the basis of the records which were directed by this Court to be produced. 3. If this is the position, it is clear that the statement in Ext.P14 that respondents 3 and 4 were transferred in public interest is rank false. It is thus clear that the representation filed by the petitioner came to be rejected by the Government on a totally unsustainable basis. In such circumstances, I am unable to sustain Ext.P14. Ext.P14 will stand quashed and the second respondent will consider the matter afresh and take a decision on the basis that the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 were all transferred on their request. Appropriate orders shall be passed in the matter within a period of five weeks from the date of WPC. 9558/04 K 5 receipt of a copy of this Judgment, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 also. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk.