IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2010 / 26TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 13278 of 2010(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- S.USHA KUMAR,TUTOR TECHNICIAN, DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY, MEDICAL COLLEGE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.V.AJAYAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, MEDICAL COLLEGE CAMPUS,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE PRINCIPAL,MEDICAL COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. S.ANITHA,TUTOR TECHNICIAN, DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY, MEDICAL COLLEGE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R4 ADV.M.CHANDRABOSE. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI.K.RAMESH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 13278/2010. APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.13.3.98. P2. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.10.12.04. P3. COPY OF THE PROSPECTUS. P4. COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL RANK LIST. P5. COPY OF THE PETITION DTD.7.4.10. P6. COPY OF THE FINAL RANK LIST. P7. COPY OF THE SERVICE CERTIFICATE. P8. COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DTD.8.4.10. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: R4A. COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL SENIORITY LIST DTD.31.10.06. B. -DO- 31.3.20. C. COPY OF THE OBJECTION DTD.84.2010. D. COPY OF THE REQUEST DTD.6.5.2010. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 13278 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 16th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a Tutor Technician in the Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram. She aspires for admission to M.Sc. (MLT) course, for which, applications were invited as per Ext.P3 prospectus from the service quota. In the service quota, admission is based strictly on the basis of seniority. In respect thereof, a seniority list was published, in which, the petitioner was not given appropriate position in accordance with her seniority, is her grievance in this writ petition. According to the petitioner, she was on leave without allowances for 81 days on various spells. By Ext.P4, a provisional rank list was published taking into account the period of leave without allowances also and the petitioner was assigned correct seniority. But later on, by Ext.P6 final rank list, the petitioner has been pushed down in the seniority list apparently on the basis that the petitioner was on leave without allowances for a period of 81 days. The petitioner submits that for the purpose of seniority, the period during which the petitioner was on leave without allowances cannot be excluded. 2. The learned Government Pleader and the 4th respondent support the seniority list now published. They would submit that leave without allowances has to be excluded for the purpose of deciding seniority. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. Relevant clause in Ext.P3 prospectus is Clause VI(3)a, 2 which reads thus: “(3) Selection under Service Quota a) Service Quota candidate need not write the common Entrance Examination. The selection under the Service Quota will be on the basis of seniority in service with respect to the total teaching experience in the field of Medical laboratory technology. The candidate selected should have at least 5 years service for superannuation after completion of the course.” From the same, it is abundantly clear that the seniority is the seniority in service. It is settled law that even when candidates take leave without allowances to accept employment abroad, although that employee would be denied other service benefits, the seniority will not be affected. Since what is relevant is the seniority in service, the very same yardstick has to be applied in this case also. That being so, the petitioner cannot be denied seniority on the ground that the period during which the petitioner was on leave without allowances has to be excluded. Accordingly, Ext.P6 final seniority list is quashed. Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to recast the list in accordance with the observations made above and the service seniority of the candidates, and make admissions in accordance with that seniority, to the service quota. Needless to say, admission already made has to be reviewed accordingly. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge 3