IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2011 / 3RD ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 18694 of 2003(A) -------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. T.M. MATHAI, JUNIOR ENGINEER/CT SECTION, NO.3427, TELK, ANGAMALY. 2. M.R. GOPINATHAN NAIR, JUNIOR ENGINEER/ PLANNING SECTION, TELK, ANGAMALLY. 3. M.J. JOY, JUNIOR ENGINEER/CORE SECTION, TELK, ANGAMALY. BY SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. SRI.S.SHARAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. TELK, ANGAMALY, REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SUDHAKARAN.K.M, EMP.NO.3068, ENGINEER, IT SECTION, TELK, ANGAMALLY. 4. POULOSE.P.V, EMP.NO.3363, JUNIOR ENGINEER/FA SECTION, TELK, ANGAMALY. 5. MURALEEDHARAN NAIR.G, EMP.NO.3364, JUNIOR ENGINEER/DESIGN SECTION, TELK, ANGAMALY. 6. RAVEENDRAN.K.N, EMP.NO.3366, JUNIOR ENGINEER/FA SECTION, TELK, ANGAMALY. R1 BY SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. SRI.SAJI VARGHESE, R3 TO R6 BY ADVS. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN, SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.18694/2003-A: ORDER ON I.A. NO.4594/2003 IN W.P.(C).NO.18694/2003-A DISMISSED 24/06/2011. SD/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE MEMO NO. PR 146/02/1612 DTD. 21/05/2002 ISSUED BY THE MANAGER, TELK, PASSED IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE JUDGEMENT IN O.P. NO. 10247/1996. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. PR/126/96/1450 DTD. 06/11/1996 ISSUED BY THE MANAGER, TELK, ANGAMALLY, PASSED IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P. NO. 7127/1994. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE MEMO NO. PIF/501 DTD. 08/04/1994 ISSUED BY DY. GENERAL MANAGER, TELK, ANGAMALLY PASSED IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE JUDGEMENT IN O.P. NO. 10524/1989. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN O.P. 6304/85 DTD. 05/01/1993 BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 31/01/97 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE R.1. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE MEMO NO. PR/46/97/2196 DTD. 16/04/97 ISSUED BY THE R.1. TO THE P.1. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 09/01/1998 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE MANAGER, TELK, ANGAMALLY. EXT.P.7.A: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 29/01/2000 SUBMITTED BY THE P.1. TO THE MANAGER, PERSONNEL AND ADMN. TRANSFORMERS AND ELECTRICAL LTD. ANGAMALY. EXT.P.7.B: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 29/06/02 SUBMITTED BY THE P.1. TO THE MANAGER (PERSONNEL) TELK, ANGAMALLY. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.7102/B1/88/ID DTD. 23/09/1988 ISSUED BY THE ADDL. SECRETARY TO GOVT. TO THE R.1. EXT.P.8.A: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.7103/B1/80/ID DTD. 17/10/1988 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT. TO THE R.1. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN O.P. NO. 7090/94 DTD. 19/09/96 BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN O.P.NO.7127/94 DTD. 19/09/96 BEFORE THIS HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. W.P.(C). NO.18694/2003-A: EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN O.P.NO.18247/1996-V DTD. 18/02/02 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P.12: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 30/12/1996 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONES TO THE R.1. EXT.P.12.A: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 16/05/97 SUBMITTED BY THE P.1. TO THE R.1. EXT.P.12.B: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 22/06/98 SUBMITTED BY THE P.1. TO THE R.1. EXT.P.13: COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN O.P.NO.36363/2002 DTD. 03/12/2002 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P.14: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. PR/46/03/519 DTD. 09/05/2003 OF THE TELK. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.18694 of 2003-A - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of June, 2011. JUDGMENT Ext.P14 order passed by the first respondent holding the view that the petitioners are not entitled for any benefit by way of seniority over respondents 3 to 6, is under challenge. 2. The petitioners entered service as Operators under the first respondent Company and they were promoted on various dates. At the time of filing of the writ petition, the petitioners were working as Junior Engineers. By Exts.P1 to P3 judgments in respect of certain other persons, notional promotions were given and the petitioners claimed the benefit of the said judgment, by Ext.P5 representation. The same was rejected by Ext.P6 reply. Again, the petitioners filed Exts.P7 to P7(b) representations. It is pointed out that respondents 3 to 6 have joined service later than the petitioners. The Government by orders dated 23.9.1988 and 17.10.1988 directed that the Company will have to follow 1 : 1 ratio between internal candidates and open recruitment for all appointments/recruitment. The said orders have been produced as Exts.P8 and P8(a). It is alleged that Ext.P8 Government Order was not followed by the Company. Reliance is placed op 18694/2003 2 on Exts.P9 to P11 judgments, wherein certain benefits have been granted by this Court to the parties therein and it is pointed out that the petitioners are similarly placed. Exts.P12 to P12(b) are the representations filed by the petitioners thereafter. Alleging inaction on the part of the first respondent, the petitioners had filed O.P.No.36363/2002 and by Ext.P13 judgment, this Court directed consideration of Ext.P2 representation produced therein. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the effect of the judgments, Exts.P9 to P11 have not been considered by the first respondent while refusing relief. The petitioners are similarly placed. 3. A reading of Ext.P14 shows the following aspects. In the first respondent Company, vacancies were to be filled up by the ratio 1 : 1 between external and internal candidates and the internal candidates had to be promoted on the basis of a test and interview and based on their qualification as on the date of occurrence of vacancy. This position continued upto 17.10.1988 when the Government passed Ext.P8(a) order directing that as far as the promotion of internal candidates are concerned, it should be effected on the basis of their seniority without conducting the test. 4. It is pointed out in Ext.P14 that prior to the issuance of Ext.P8(a) order, a test and interview was conducted on 3.2.1988 to the post of op 18694/2003 3 Supervisor trainee from among the qualified internal candidates. The petitioners herein and respondents 3 to 6 participated in the test and interview. The third respondent was included in the list and respondents 4 to 6 were included in the waiting list. The petitioners were not successful in the test and interview and they did not find a place in the select list or waiting list. The select list and the waiting list were valid for one year, i.e. upto 3.2.1989 and respondents 3 to 6 were appointed during the validity of the said list. The petitioners never challenged the selection and appointment which have become final. The order Ext.P8 is applicable only for the selection from 17.10.1988, the date of issuance of Ext.P8(a) order. It is pointed out that the judgments relied upon by the petitioners concern cases of persons who claimed promotion based on the said order only and thus the case of the petitioners is not similar. The first selection after the said Govt. Order was conducted on 6.12.1989. 5. Evidently, in Exts.P9 to P11 judgments, the challenge was made on the basis of non compliance of the Govt. Order dated 17.10.1988. The promotions of respondents 3 to 6 are not based on the said Govt. Order as noted already. Therefore, the situation as far as the petitioners herein and the petitioners in Exts.P9 to P11 judgments is not identical. 6. Even though learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that op 18694/2003 4 Exts.P9 to P11 judgments were not considered while passing Ext.P14, a reading of the order shows that all the aspects have been considered. As the contesting respondents were promoted based on a selection made prior to 17.10.1988 wherein, the petitioners failed to find a place in the select list, they cannot bank upon the judgments which are evidently in respect of the selection made after the issuance of Govt. Order dated 17.10.1988 (Ext.P8 (a) herein). For all these reasons, the original petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/ op 18694/2003 5 T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.18694 of 2003-A - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT 24th day of June, 2011.