IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2011 / 1ST MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 2182 of 2011(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- GEETHAKUMARY.S., AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KOTTARAKKARA KRISHI BHAVAN, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.R.REJI SMT.THARA THAMBAN SRI.B.BIPIN SMT.REVATHY P.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRTARY TO GOVT., DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.SANDESH RAJA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.2182 of 2011 ================== Dated this the 21st day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is working as an Agricultural Officer. She was advised by the Kerala Public Service Commission to that post by advice dated 1.10.1988. But she applied to the Government for extension of joining time for undergoing post graduate course in Agriculture. After availing of the extension of time to join duty, the petitioner joined duty on 19.4.1989. Subsequently, in 1992, Ext.P3 seniority list of Agricultural Officers was duly published. According to the petitioner, she was not aware of that seniority list. She would contend that she became aware of the same only when Ext.P9 was issued on 9.2.2010. As per Ext.P3, the petitioner's seniority was counted from 19.4.1989 when she joined duty. She claims that, she ought to have been given seniority on the basis of the first effective date of advice as per Rule 27(c) of the Kerala State & Subordinate Services Rules. The petitioner filed a representation in that regard and obtained Ext.P8 judgment dated 16.10.2009 for consideration of the same. Pursuant to the same, Ext.P9 order has been passed by the Government rejecting the claim of the petitioner holding that since the petitioner had availed of extension of time to join duty beyond three months and the post graduate degree for obtaining which she had obtained extension of w.p.c.2182/11 2 time to join duty was not an essential qualification prescribed for the post to which the petitioner was advised, she is entitled to seniority only on the basis of the date of joining duty and not on the basis of the first effective advice. The petitioner is challenging the same seeking the following reliefs: “(i) to call for the records leading upto Ext.P9 and quash Ext.P9. (ii) to issue a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to maintain seniority taking into account the date of advise by the Kerala Public service Commission and also to declare that the late joining of duty was with the sanction of the govt. as she was undergoing the Post Graduate Degree course, a qualification which is directly connected with the post to which she was appointed. (iii) to issue a writ of mandamus or other writ or order directing the 1st respondent to re-reconsider Ext.P9 and to assign seniority to the petitioner from the date of her original advise, following Rule 27(c) of KS&SSR and to reassign her position in the seniority list of Agricultural Officers accordingly and also to consider her case for promotion to the post of Asst. Director in Agriculture Department in the available vacancy as per her seniority to be re- assigned on the basis of the date of advise by PSC. 2. I have heard th learned Government Pleader also. 3. The petitioner is liable to fail in this writ petition for more than one reason. First is that in Ext.P1 order is dated 7.7.1989 granting the petitioner extension of time to join duty, it is specifically stated as follows: “i. The seniority of the candidate in the cadre of Agricultural Officer Grade II will be reckoned with reference to the date of joining duty in the Department as laid down in the proviso to Rule 27(c) of Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958.” The petitioner has not chosen to challenge the same at any time, not even in this writ petition. Secondly, on merits also, the petitioner is not w.p.c.2182/11 3 entitled to the reliefs prayed for under Rule 27(c) of the KS&SSR, the relevant portion of which reads thus: “27. Seniority. - ..... xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (c) Notwithstanding anything contained in clauses (a) and (b) above, the seniority of a person appointed to a class, category or grade in a service on the advice of the Commission shall, unless he has been reduced to a lower rank as punishment, be determined by the date of first effective advice made for his appointment to such class, category or grade and when two or more persons are included in the same list of candidates advised, their relative seniority shall be fixed according to the order in which their names are arranged in the advice list. Provided that the seniority of candidates who have been granted extension of time to join duty beyond three months from the date of the appointment order, except those who are undergoing courses of study or training which are prescribed as essential qualification for the post to which they are advised for appointment, shall be determined by the date of their joining duty. xxx xxx xxx xxx” Going by the same, it is clear that a person who has been granted extension of time to join duty beyond 3 months from the date of appointment order, is entitled to seniority only from the date of his/her joining duty unless the extension of time to join duty was for the purpose of undergoing a course of study or training which is prescribed as essential qualification for the post to which the person is advised for appointment. Here the petitioner was advised for appointment to the post of Agricultural Officer. If the post graduation for completing which the petitioner obtained extension of time for joining duty was a qualification prescribed for the post of Agricultural Officer, the petitioner would not even have been considered for selection at all. w.p.c.2182/11 4 Therefore, the condition prescribed in the proviso is not satisfied in the case of the petitioner for an order in favour of the petitioner. 4. I also note that Ext.P3 seniority list was published as early as in 1991 and even Ext.P9 order was passed on 9.2.2010. The petitioner has filed this writ petition only on 20.1.2011. For all the above reasons, the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs prayed for in this writ petition, and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge