IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 25125 of 2011(M) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER : -------------------- V.S.SINIL, S/O.V.K.SREEDHARAN AGED 43 YEARS, FORESTER, IRAVIKULAM NATIONAL PARK P.O.MUNNAR, RAJAMALA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.M.SAJJAD RESPONDENTS : ------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FOREST AND WILD LIFE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 2. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (ADMINISTRATION) FOREST HEADQUARTERS, P.O VAZHUTHAKKAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 022. 3. THE CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS HIGH RANGE CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM 686 001. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.JOSE ADIYODI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: AV WPC.NO.25125/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS : EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E1-9516/97 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P1(a) : COPY OF OF THE NOTIFICATION OF THE K.P.S.C. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE RANK LIST. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN CMP.NO.2579/2001 IN OP.1539/2001-C EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP.NO.1539 OF 2001. EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP.19810 OF 2001 G EXT.P6 : COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE SENIORITY LIST (ORDER NO.E4-28038/2003 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT) EXT.P7: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P7(a) : COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P8 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P9 : COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 2008 (7) SCC 728 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A TO JUDGE AV K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.25125 of 2011-M. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 18th November, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is working as a Forester Grade I. He was appointed pursuant to a selection and appointment by the Kerala Public Service Commission ('PSC' for short). His date of advice is 17.12.2001. He was appointed on 15.5.2002. 2. According to the petitioner, as per the Special Rules, 35% of the vacancies of Foresters was set apart for direct recruits. For selection to the quota of direct recruits, the PSC had invited applications and in the rank list the petitioner was rank No.42. The petitioner alleges that though 35% of the vacancies were reserved for direct recruits, only 25% vacancies were reported to the PSC and 10% was filled up from the ministerial staff. The said action was challenged in OP.No.1539/2001. In the said WP(C).No.25125/2011-M. 2 writ petition, as per an interim order, this Court directed the respondents to report 15 vacancies of Foresters to the PSC. It was found by the Court that the direct recruits were entitled to 35% of the vacancies against the cadre strength. Thereafter the petitioner was advised and appointed. 3. Since the ministerial staff had been appointed before the appointment of the petitioner, against vacancies that was set apart for direct recruits, in order to avoid retrenchment, the department upgraded 15 posts to accommodate 15 persons who were appointed from ministerial staff. Consequently, the petitioner is placed below such persons who were illegally appointed. The above discrepancy according to the petitioner, was not corrected even thereafter. The present grievance of the petitioner is that even when a final seniority list has been finalised now, the petitioner's seniority has been assigned without considering the date of advice of the petitioner, WP(C).No.25125/2011-M. 3 below the persons who were so illegally appointed. 4. The petitioner has therefore submitted Ext.P8 representation, which is pending consideration of the second respondent. He seeks the issue of a direction for the consideration and disposal of Ext.P8. 5. I have heard the learned Govt.Pleader also. 6. In view of the limited relief that is claimed, I am of opinion that this writ petition itself can be disposed of granting the said relief. 7. In the above circumstance, this writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to consider the grievance of the petitioner set out in his representation, evidenced herein by Ext.P8, 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 petitioner as well as the persons who are likely to be affected. The petitioner may WP(C).No.25125/2011-M. 4 produce at the time of hearing, any documents or judgments of this Court that are relied upon in support of his claim. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, (Judge) Kvs/-