IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2011 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1932 WA.No. 207 of 2011() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.31643/2010 Dated 26/10/2010 .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 IN W.P.(C) ------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR(EDUCATION), OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR(EDUCATION), PATHANAMTHITTA. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVALLA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, MS.T.B.REMANI RESPONDENT(S): PETITONERS & RESPONDENT NO.5 IN W.P.(C) ------------------------------------------------------ 1. BIJU SURESH,S/O.BABU K.SURESH, ANAKKAVIL HOUSE,VALLIKODE.P.O,PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN-678594. (PEON DEVASWOM BOARD HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, THIRUVALLA) 2. THE CORPORATE MANAGER,TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD SCHOOLS/SECRETARY,TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,DEVASWOM BUILDINGS,NANDHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. MR.K.N.VENUGOPALA PANICKER, SC FOR R2 MR.S.SUBHASH CHAND FOR R1 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/02/2011, ALONG WITH COC NO. 118 OF 2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ---------------------------------- W.A.No.207 of 2011 & COC No.118 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 22nd day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, J. This Writ Appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge directing approval of promotion of the 1st respondent from the post of Full Time Menial to the post of Peon made by the management on 28/12/2007 based on the declaration furnished by the Manager. The short dispute raised by the appellants is that unless the management gives the seniority list of the Menials employed in all the Schools of the Devaswom management, it would not be possible for the DEO to approve the appointment of the 1st respondent as Peon. 2. After hearing all sides, we find that Ext.P8 relied on by the learned Single Judge is a seniority list provisionally approved by the DPI, and even though the vacancy arose with effect from 01/01/2008 no other person in the corporate management staked W.A.No.207/2011 & COC No.118/2011 -2- a claim in preference to the 1st respondent. The corporate Manager representing the Devaswom Board also has given an undertaking to the appellants that all loss to be suffered by the Government will be honoured by the management, if another claimant stakes claim and succeeds in it for the post of Peon in the School. Admittedly, the 1st respondent was promoted to the post of Peon in a retirement vacancy with effect from 01/01/2008 vide order 28/12/2007. We do not find any justification for the appellants to decline approval of his promotion as Peon and that of the appointment of the Menial in the vacancy arising on account of the promotion of the 1st respondent as Peon on the technicality stated by them i.e. want of proper seniority list. Therefore, we direct the appellants to treat Ext.P8 as a valid seniority list and approve the appointment of the 1st respondent as Peon with effect from 01/01/2008 and release him arrears of salary without any delay. If any other claimant stakes a claim and is found to be entitled to be appointed in preference to the 1st respondent, then all costs consequential thereto shall be recovered by the Government from the management i.e. the Devaswom Board, and the Devaswom Board in turn from the W.A.No.207/2011 & COC No.118/2011 -3- Secretary, if he is found responsible. Since we have disposed of the Writ Appeal only today, we feel the Contempt of Court Case can be closed with a specific direction to the appellants in the Writ Appeal to comply with the judgment, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If compliance is not made, the petitioners in the Contempt of Court Case can reopen it and in that event, the Registry will post the matter before the Division Bench. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) jg