IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 20TH DECEMBER 2011 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WA.No. 1662 of 2010 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.31469/2009 DATED 01/12/2009 .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONER: ----------------------------- 1. RATHAN RAJ,S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 54 YEARS, AMOLBHAV MANDIRAM,VAZHAYILA, KODAPP ANAKKUNNU PO,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 2. PURUSHOTHAMAN, S/O.THANKAPPAN, AGED 52 YEARS, SAROOPAN POZHUTHU,VENGANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, * 2. THE DEPARTMENT PROMOTION COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, [2ND RESPONDENT DELETED FROM PARTY ARRAY AS PER ORDER DATED 20.10.2011 IN I.A. No.590/11] 3. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE(IR) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 4. THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER, SMT.GIRIJA GOPAL. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WA.No. 1662 of 2010 APPENDIX APPELLANTS' EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE I : TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.7277/95 DATED 07.08.1996 OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA. ANNEXURE II : TRUE COPY OF C.O. NO.122/99 DATED 13.01.1999. ANNEXURE III: TRUE COPY OF SELECT LIST OF HEAD CONSTABLES VIDE CO NO.761/(A)/99 /TC DATED 13.08.99. /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE Manjula Chellur, Ag. C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A. No. 1662 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21st day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Manjula Chellur, Ag. C.J. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The main controversy in the present appeal is from what date the seniority of the appellants have to be reckoned from, whether from the date on which they became eligible because of passing of the test or the date on which the vacancy arose in a particular cadre. 2. We note from the averments in the writ petition that nowhere the writ petitioners have come out with a statement on what date the vacancy arose subsequent to the passing of departmental test by them, so as to consider their eligibility from that date, in pursuance of Rule 28 (b) (10) and 28 (bb) of K.S. & S.S.R rules. 3. We also note from the memorandum of the writ petition that none of these rules were relied upon or brought to the notice of the Court to contend that the method adopted by the respondent authority to prepare the seniority list based on W.A. No. 1662 of 2011 -:2:- the date of passing the departmental test was contrary to the rule in existence. In the absence of material particulars being disclosed in the writ petition on the legal position upon which the appellants were relying upon, the learned Judge would not have benefit of the arguments now placed before us. In other words, what was argued before the learned Single Judge is totally a different argument from the arguments now advanced by the appellants. In that view of the matter, it is settled law that a new case cannot be made out before the appellate court which was not proposed before the learned Single Judge. Hence, we are of the opinion, nothing remains for our consideration and accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. Manjula Chellur, Ag. Chief Justice. P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge. ttb