IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 1ST PHALGUNA 1929 WA.No. 2358 of 2007() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.20221/2007 Dated 02/07/2007 .................... APPELLANTS: PETITIONERS IN W.P.C: ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. B.PRASANNAKUMAR, DRILLER, DISTRICT OFFICE KOLLAM, GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT. 2. A.B.PUSHAPADHARAN, DRILLER, DISTRICT OFFICE THRISSUR, GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT. 3. R.LALU, DRILLER, DISTRICT OFFICE KOTTAYAM, GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT. BY ADV. SRI.G.G.MANOJ SRI.JAICE JACOB SRI.P.M.BENZIR RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,MINOR IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR,GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT, JALABHAVAN, AMBALAMUKKU, KAVADIYAR.P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. A.NAJUMUDHEEN, DRILLER, DISTRICT OFFICE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT. 4. K.M.CHANDREN, DRILLER ,DISTRICT OFFICE KOZHIKODE GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT. 5. V.P.BALAKRISHNAN, DRILLER ,DISTRICT OFFICE KANNORE, GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT. Kss ..2/- ...2.... W.A.NO.2358/2007 6. THULASIDHARAN PILLAI, DRILLER ,DISTRICT OFFICE KOLLAM, GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT. 7. A.MOOSA, DRILLER,DISTRICT OFFICE MALAPPURAM, GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT. 8. K.P.MOHANADASAN, DRILLER,DISTRICT OFFICE MALAPPURAM, GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT. 9. M.MAJEED, DRILLER,DISTRICT OFFICE PATHANAMTHITTA GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT. 10. K.SASINDHARAN, DRILLER, DISTRICT OFFICE KOZHIKODE, GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT. 11. G.SOMANATHA PILLA, DRILLER, DISTRICT OFFICE ALAPPUZHA. GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT. 12. M.VIJAYAKUMAR, DRILLER, DISTRICT OFFICE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT. 13. K.T.PUSHPAN, DRILLER,DISTRICT OFFICE ERNAKULAM. GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT. 14. P.ASHOKAN, DRILLER, DISTRICT OFFICE KOLLAM, GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT. 15. JAMES MANUEL.C.M., DRILLER, DISTRICT OFFICE KOLLAM, GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR BY ADV. SRI.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL) SRI.N.M.MADHU ) R4,R5,R7.R8 & R10 SRI.B.MOHANLAL - R6, R11 & R14 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss J.B. Koshy & K.Hema, JJ. -------------------------------------- W.A. No. 2358 of 2007 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of February, 2008 Judgment Koshy,J. Appellants herein approached this court challenging Ext.P9 seniority list of Driller/Driller Mechanic as on 1.3.2005. Appellants were appointed through special recruitment in January, 1983. Respondents were advised by the Public Service Commission on 23.1.1982. Almost one year prior to the appointment of the petitioners by special recruitment as per rule 27 (c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules. Date of effective advice is the date of appointment for the purpose of seniority for appointments through PSC. Admittedly, special recruitment was made thereafter. Therefore, on the basis of accepted principles, contesting respondents were senior. Writ petition filed was dismissed. When the writ appeal was filed, counter affidavits were filed stating that even as drilling assistants, respondents were shown as seniors as can be seen from Ext.R1 (a) as well as Ext.R6 (c). Even though not raised earlier, it was contended that seniority list was published in the year 1998. For drillers wherein petitioners' name were shown as seniors and that seniority list was not W.A.No. 2358/2007 2 challenged and it is contended that on the basis of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Usha Devi v. State of Kerala (2002 (1) KLT 615) seniority list finalised cannot be challenged after long number of years of service, but, it is the contention of the respondents that when seniority list was published there were objections and promotion of the petitioners to the post of driller was provisional and the above seniority list was published on the basis of the above provisional promotion. But, when final seniority list was published, respondents were senior and that seniority list has no defects. In any view of the matter, Government itself rectified the mistake and the question is whether Ext.P9 final seniority list is correct or not. Ext.P9 seniority list is challenged. We are of the view that considering rule 27 (c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, respondents were, admittedly, senior of about one year to the appellants and their seniority cannot be ignored and Ext.P9 seniority list needs no interference by this court in a writ petition. We agree with the learned single Judge and appeal is dismissed. J.B.Koshy Judge K. Hema Judge vaa W.A.No. 2358/2007 3 J.B. KOSHY AND K.HEMA ,JJ. ------------------------------------- W.A. No. 2358 of 2007 ------------------------------------- Judgment Dated:20th February, 2008