IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2008 / 31ST ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 33734 of 2006(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M.K.SANTHARAM, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.KUNJU KUNJU, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PANANGAD POLICE STATION, KOCHI CITY. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.MOHANAN SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM RANGE, ERNAKULAM. 3. P.K.PRAKASH, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MULANKADU POLICE STATION, KOCHI CITY, ERNAKULAM RANGE. 4. VISWANATHAN M.T., SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VIGILANCE WING CELL, CIVIL SUPPLIES, ERNAKULAM, GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI CITY, ERNAKULAM RANGE. 5. RAJU P.N., SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CRIME DETACHMENT, ALAPPUZHA, ERNAKULAM RANGE. 6. A.S.HARIDAS, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI. 7. K.A.RAMESAN, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM RURAL, KOTTAPADI, ERNAKULAM RANGE. BY ADV. SRI.SOORAJ T.ELENJICKAL FOR R3 TO 5 SRI.M.A.JOSEPH MANAVALAN FOR R3 TO R5 R1 AND R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SMITHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION NO. SS/II/88/ DATED 25.6.1988 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDING NO. A1(a)1300/97/EC DATED 16.10.1997 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS NO. A1-102/2001-ER DATED 14.6.2001 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS NO. A1-1100/90 ER DATED 21.8.2000 EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. A1/7060/99 ER DATED 13.6.2000 EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS NO. A1/7566/2001-ER DATED 13.6.2001 EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 9.3.2001 EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. A1-28621/04-ER DATED 8.6.2006 EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION DATED 25.7.2006 EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. CONFIDL.4/64634/93 DATED 12.9.1994 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 33734 OF 2006 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is challenging seniority given to respondents 3 to 7 over the petitioner in the cadre of Asst. Sub Inspector of Police. The grievance of the petitioner is that petitioner and respondents 3 to 7 were direct recruits to the cadre of head constable and petitioner was in the rank list of head constable above all these respondents. However, in the course of time, respondents 3 to 7 who were juniors to the petitioner in the cadre of head constable have gone above him in the cadre of Asst. Sub Inspector of Police. Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 contended that promotion to the post of Asst. Sub Inspector of Police is given based on seniority of Head Constables in the range concerned and it is not the State level seniority of Head Constables that is taken into consideration while considering promotion to the post of Asst. Sub Inspector of Police. Petitioner also does not dispute this position. In fact respondents 3 to 7 were in the Eastern Range consisting of Alleppey, Kottayam and Idukki Districts 2 when all of them got promoted to the post of Asst. Sub Inspector of Police from the post of Head Constable. Petitioner has not challenged the promotions given to respondents 3 to 7 who were promoted on several dates prior to 1.6.1997 when petitioner was promoted to the post of Asst. Sub Inspector of Police. In fact respondents 3 to 5 were promoted one year before petitioner got promotion as Asst. Sub Inspector of Police. Petitioner's grievance started only when Ernakulam range was constitued by joining the Districts of Eastern Range and respondents 3 to 7 and petitioner came under one range. The necessary consequence is that in the seniority list of Asst. Sub Inspector of Police, petitioner figures lower than respondents 3 to 7. It is against this seniority list that petitioner has approached this Court. 2. Counsel for the petitioner has referred to Rule 27(a) of KS & SSR and contended that seniority should be given based on the ranking in the entry cadre. However, Government Pleader submitted that that Rule has no application and seniority has to be granted with reference to date of promotion to the higher post, that is from Head Constable to Asst. Sub Inspector of Police. Since respondents 3 to 7 were promoted 3 to the cadre of Asst. Sub Inspector of Police much before the petitioner, though in another range. They will not forfeit their seniority in the cadre of Asst. Sub Inspector of Police, when new Range is formed. In fact, petitioner and respondents 3 to 7 came under one new range formed, namely, Ernakulam Range, together and therefore seniority of Asst. Sub Inspector of Police in the range is the date of promotion given to them. In fact, it is conceded that promotion to the post of Sub Inspector of Police is based on the seniority list of Asst. Sub Inspector of Police in the State level. Therefore I find no justification for the petitioner to claim seniority over respondents 3 to 7 who were promoted earlier than the petitioner to the post of Asst. Sub Inspector of Police. W.P. therefore fails and is dismissed. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 4