IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH MARCH 2008 / 7TH CHAITHRA 1930 WA.No. 667 of 2008() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.25400/2007 Dated 21/08/2007 .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER --------------------- M. UNNIKRISHNAN, U.D.CLERK INSPECTION AND AUDIT, COLLECTORATE, PALAKKAD BY ADV. SMT.S.KARTHIKA SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI SRI.M.R.ANISON SRI.T.R.RAJESH RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT. LAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONERATE, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVASIS SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC, P.S.C. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.A. NO. 667 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated 27th March, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioner is the appellant. He is a U.D. Clerk working in the Revenue Department in Palakkad district. He applied for the post of L.D. Clerk in various Departments in Palakkad district, when the Public Service Commission invited applications for the said post. In the rank list published by the P.S.C., on 18.2.1993, he was rank No.12. His caste in the S.S.L.C. Book was shown as “Ezhuvan”. He claimed the reservation available to Ezhava community under the O.B.C quota. In view of the difference in the spelling of the caste of the petitioner in the S.S.L.C. Book, the P.S.C did not extend the benefit of reservation to him. Challenging the stand of the P.S.C., he filed O.P.No.10455/1994 before this Court. The said O.P was referred to the Division Bench and the same was finally disposed of by Ext.P1 judgment dated 27.10.1997. Though this Court held that Ezhuvan is a synonym for Ezhava, the appellant's prayer for consequential advice from WA 667/2008 2 the rank list was declined. He attempted an S.L.P before the Apex Court. When the matter was taken up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was submitted on behalf of the State Government that the appellant's contention has been accepted by the State, in view of the amendment notification issued by the Government to the relevant Rules. In view of that submission, the appellant withdrew the S.L.P. Later, the Government issued Ext.P4 order dated 30.6.2000, requesting the P.S.C to advice the appellant. There was a stipulation in that order that the order will take effect prospectively. Pursuant to the said order, the P.S.C advised the appellant for appointment by communication dated 10.11.2000. Thereupon the Land Revenue Commissioner issued Ext.P5 order dated 5.12.2000, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P5 in the writ petition, permitting appointment of the appellant. Ext.P5 also stipulated that the order will take effect prospectively. In the light of Exts.P4 and P5 orders, the District Collector appointed the appellant as L.D.C., by Ext.P6 order dated 29.12.2000. Later, on 19.3.2006, the appellant filed Ext.P7 representation claiming retrospective effect to his advice and consequential seniority in the cadre of L.D.C. The same was rejected by the Government by Ext.P8 communication dated 12.3.2007. The writ petition was filed, challenging Ext.P8 and also seeking consequential reliefs. WA 667/2008 3 2. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, holding that in the absence of timely challenge to Exts.P4, P5 and P6, the present challenge to Ext.P8 is not maintainable. It was also noticed that if challenge is made to Exts.P4, P5 or P6 now, the same will be highly belated also. This Writ Appeal is filed, challenging the above judgment of the learned Single Judge. 3. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Going by Rule 27 (a) of Part II, K.S. & S.S.R., the appellant is entitled to get seniority only with effect from the date of advice. The advice can be modified only by the P.S.C. In fact, the Government permitted the advice and appointment of the appellant, invoking its power under Rule 39 of Part II, K.S. & S.S.R. It was specifically ordered in Ext.P4 that the order will take effect only prospectively. The appellant suffered that order without demur. So, the representation Ext.P7, filed after six years, was not maintainable. So, it was rightly rejected by the Government. Therefore, we find nothing wrong with the decision of the learned Single Judge. We agree with the reasons and WA 667/2008 4 conclusions in it. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. Nm/