IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2010 / 1ST ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 13643 of 2010(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.P.JOHNSON , PREVENTIVE OFFICER EXCISE CIRCLE OFFICE , MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR SMT.K.V.RESHMI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT , SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. ARAVINDKUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................... W.P.(C).13643/2010 ....................... Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The prayer sought in the writ petition is for a direction to consider Ext.P6. 2. The facts of the case are that Ext.P3 final seniority list of Excise Preventive Officers was published subject to the outcome of the writ petitions and the SLP mentioned therein. According to the petitioner, SLP that was pending then, has been disposed of as per Ext.P4 order of the Apex Court. It is stated that thereafter petitioner filed Ext.P6 representation requesting for review of the final seniority list, in the light of Ext.P4 order of the Apex Court. Orders were not passed on the representation. Hence the writ petition is filed. 3. A statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents. Going by the statement, contention raised are that the writ petition leading to Ext.P4 order of the Apex Court was decided against the Department on the basis that by an executive order the statutory W.P.(C).13643/10 2 rules were modified. It is stated that subsequent to Ext.P4 order of the Apex Court, Special Rule itself has been modified and the ratio of 1:1 between SSLC holders and Non-SSLC holders has been introduced. It is also stated that amendment to the Rule is effective from 30.3.2001. On this basis, respondents contend that Ext.P3 final seniority list does not call for any review as sought for by the petitioner. 4. Since the Special Rule itself has been amended with retrospective effect from 30.3.2001, respondents are right in their contention that the seniority list does not call for any review as a consequence of Ext.P4 order of the Apex Court. Therefore, in this writ petition no further orders are called for and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs