IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2008 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1930 WA.No. 2785 of 2007() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.23343/2004 Dated 13/07/2007 .................... APPELLANTS: RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT, L.M.S.COMPOUND, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.NOBLE MATHEW RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS & RES. 3 & 4 IN THE WPC ------------------------------------------------ 1. P.N.RAMESH RAJU, ASSISTANT DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER,COMMISSIONERATE OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. K.D.GOVINDANKUTTY, ASSISTANT DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONERATE OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, (ON DEPUTATION AS CO-ORDINATOR TO KERALA RURAL WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION AGENCY), AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR. 3. K.ANTONY, ASSISTANT DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONERATE OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. C.SAHADEVAN, UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, ON OTHER DUTY AS ASSISTANT PRIVATE SECRETARY TO MINISTER FOR FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. E.M.THOMAS, DEPUTY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, ON OTHER DUTY AS ADDL. PRIVATE SECRETARY TO MINISTER FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADDL. 6. M.SOMASEKHARAN, ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 7. A.MANOHARAN, ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 8. B.SUDHAKARAN, JOINT SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 9. P.SANTHILATHA, JOINT SECRETARYTO GOVERNMENT, ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 10. S.SATYAMOORTHY, DEPUTY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 11.JOHN THOMAS, DEPUTY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 12. G.MATHUNNY PANICKER, UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (HG), ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 13. V.V.SUSEELA, UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (HG), ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 14. E.ABDUL MAJEED, UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 15. R.RAVEENDRA MENON, UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. IMPLEADED AS ADDL. RESPONDENTS 6 TO 15 IN W.A.NO.2785/2007 AS PER ORDER IN I.A.102/2008 BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. FOR R1 & R2 SRI.T.A.SHAJI SMT.T.V.NEEMA SRI.MANUEL VIVERA SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY FOR R6 TO R15 SMT.N.SANTHA SRI.S.A.ANAND SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.Koshy & K. Hema, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No. 2785 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 7th day of April, 2008 JUDGMENT Koshy, J. Learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment only followed a Full Bench decision of this Court reported in Balakrishnan Nair V. Ram Mohan Nair (1998(1) KLT 766, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Ali V. State of Kerala (2003(2) KLT 922 (SC), and directed the Government to take a decision in the matter in accordance with law. 2. We are unable to understand why the Government has filed a Writ Appeal challenging the impugned judgment. There is no necessity for the State to side with any of the parties. Unnecessary litigation is encouraged by the Government by filing these type of appeals. It will cause heavy litigation expenses to the State and increase in pendency of unnecessary cases in court. It is not the duty of the Government to file appeal in each and every case. With regard to decision relating to interse seniority, if the parties are aggrieved, it is for them to approach the concerned forum and the Government need not side with any individual or WA 2785/07 -2- group in a service matter especially when the principle involved in the case is finally settled by the Honourable Apex Court. In this case Government was only directed to decide the matter according to law. Since the learned Single Judge only directed to decide the matter on the basis of a Full Bench decision of this Court, which was confirmed by the Supreme Court, we see no ground to interfere in the matter. 3. It is also submitted that the Government has already passed an order after a contempt petition was filed for willful lapses disobeying the directions in the impugned judgment. According to the writ petitioner, even the order passed is not in accordance with the direction of this Court, it was passed only to circumvent the ratio of the decision and the present writ appeal is filed to avoid contempt proceedings. We are not expressing any opinion regarding the merits of the order passed by the Government said to have been passed as per the direction of the learned Single Judge. If any of the parties are aggrieved, it is for them to challenge the same. If the Government has passed an order and complied with the directions of the learned Single Judge, we fail to understand why writ appeal is filed. Learned counsel for additional respondents submitted that they were not parties to the writ petition but they are aggrieved by the impugned judgment. But they did not file appeals after obtaining permission even when they got notice of the judgment. In any event the learned Judge only WA 2785/07 -3- directed to pass orders on the basis of decision of the Apex Court according to law and if the order is passed not in accordance with the principles laid down by the Apex Court and if they are aggrieved otherwise it is for them to challenge the order passed. 4. In the circumstances, the appeal is dismissed with costs at Rs.5,000/- to be paid to respondents 1 to 3 (writ petitioners). The costs shall be paid within one month from today. J.B. Koshy, Judge K. Hema, Judge mn.