IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 3617 of 2008(E) ------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. D.PURUSHOTHAMAN, U.D.CLERK, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. K.SREEDHARAN, U.D.CLERK, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EDUCATION OFFICER, PUNALUR. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS SRI.S.SHAJI RESPONDENT(S): ---------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PUNALUR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JOSE ADIYODI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.C. NO. 3617 of 2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEARING NO.SY 2/27536/2004 DATED 21.4.2007. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 25.6.2007. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEARING NO.SY.2/57194/2007/DPI DATED 1.12.2007. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL [ True copy ] P.S. to Judge. ul/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 3617 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th November, 2011. JUDGMENT The petitioners are Upper Division Clerks in the service of the respondents. According to them they were entitled to be promoted as Upper Division Clerks during 1986. But, they were not given their due promotions at the relevant time. They were promoted only much later. Therefore, the petitioners were aggrieved by their ranking in the seniority list of Upper Division Clerks which was published in the year 2002. Though they have submitted their objections to the seniority list, their objections are still pending. According to the petitioners, as per Ext.P1 retrospective promotions were given to them only with effect from 1-7-2009. Though the pay of the petitioners were refixed as per Ext.P2, the same was cancelled by Ext.P3. Therefore the petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P3. 2. Along with I.A.18852/2011 the petitioners have produced Ext.P4 order of the Honourable Supreme Court in which it has been found that if several persons were fully qualified to be appointed to vacancies that arise on the same day, promotions are to be made WPC 3617/2008 2 on the basis of their seniority in the feeder category and not on the basis of the dates on which they acquired the test qualification. In view of the above dictum the petitioners have submitted Exts.P5 and P6 representations setting out their grievances and seeking re-assignment of their seniority in the cadre of U.D.Clerks. The petitioners seek the issue of a direction to consider and dispose of Exts.P5 and P6. 3. Though a counter affidavit has already been filed on behalf of the Government, since the petitioners have confined their reliefs to a direction for the disposal of Exts.P5 and P6, I am of the opinion that without entering into any of the disputed contentions this writ petition can be disposed of directing the consideration of Exts.P5 and P6. 4. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the first respondent to consider the grievances of the petitioners set out in Exts.P5 and P6 representations in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders thereon as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioners also. Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj P.S.to Judge WPC 3617/2008 3