IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2011 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1933 RP.No. 772 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WA.1297/2006 Dated 19/07/2006 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): APPELLANTS IN WA -------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE(SPECIAL CELL) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS VAZHUTHACAUD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SECRETARY, PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SANDESH RAJA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT IN WA ------------------------------- M.VASANTHAKUMAR,HEAD SURVEYOR, SUB SECTION,5,OFFICE OF THE SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT, KAZ HAKOOTTAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (VENY HOUSE, KANIAPURAM PO,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM)695 582, ADV. SRI.A.ANILKUMAR SMT.R.RANJINI THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME FOR ADMISSION ON 30/03/2011, ALONG WITH RP NO. 773 OF 2010 . THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- R.P.Nos.765, 772 & 773 of 2010 in W.A Nos.1291, 1297 &1298 of 2006 & Contempt Case (Civil) Nos. 960 & 963 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 30th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT A.K. Basheer, J. The above captioned review petitions are directed against the common judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A Nos. 1291, 1297 &1298 of 2006. 2. The two contempt of court cases have been referred to the division bench since they arise from the common judgment passed by a learned single Judge, which was the subject matter of the writ appeals referred to above. 3. The primary issue that came up for consideration in the writ appeals related to the power of the Government to grant exemption to the employees belonging to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes from passing special and departmental tests under the rule 13AA of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules 1958 (for promotion to the post of Superintendent of Survey and Land Records). We do not propose to elaborate on that issue, since we are only concerned with the prayer now being made by the State to review the common judgment. R.P.Nos.765, 772 & 773 of 2010 2 4. The primary concern or apprehension of the review petitioners appears to be that the judgment rendered by the Division Bench may have far reaching implications or consequences in almost all other Departments in the State and the Government may be compelled to revise and unsettle several seniority lists which have become final. It is further contended that this may lead seniority disputes in all Departments. It is further contended that the decision in State of Kerala Vs. Chathan (2005(1) KLT 75) which had been relied on by a Division Bench may require reconsideration. Various other contentions have also been raised by the petitioners while seeking review. 5. We are afraid that all the grounds raised in the review petitions are aimed at persuading this Court to re-hear the appeals. This cannot be permitted for reasons more than one. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents the apex court had dismissed the appeals preferred by the State against the judgment in the two appeals while the Special Leave Petition filed against the other also met with the same fate. 6. Significantly it is beyond controversy that the Government has passed Annexure VI order dated September 20, 2008 by which the directions issued by the learned single Judge R.P.Nos.765, 772 & 773 of 2010 3 have been complied with and the respondents in the writ appeals have been given promotion as Superintendent of Survey and Land Records. Yet again we do not propose to go into that question at this stage. We may advert to that aspect while dealing with the Contempt of Court Case which have also come up for consideration along with these review petitions. 7. In our view the apprehension now voiced by the review petitioners does not deserve any merit. It is on record that the subject matter of the writ appeals only related to the power of exemption vested with the Government as provided under Rule 13 AA of the KS &SSR. Obviously, the dispute arose in the case of employees in the Department of Survey and Land Records who belonged to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Communities. We do not find any merit in the contention raised by the petitioners that the Government may be compelled to revise all seniority lists in all other Departments because of the above common judgment in the writ appeals. If such a situation arises the Department concerned will have to necessarily deal with that issue in accordance with law. This court need not exercise its power of review merely on the basis of the apprehension aired by the petitioners on the assumption that the judgment may have far reaching implication or far reaching consequences in all other Departments. The decision in the writ R.P.Nos.765, 772 & 773 of 2010 4 appeals was obviously taken in the light of the provision contained in rule 13 AA on the basis of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the cases. With this observation the review petitions are dismissed. Contempt Case (Civil) Nos. 960 & 963 of 2008 These two Contempt of Court Cases have been referred by a learned single Judge to the Division Bench to consider whether charges have to be framed against the respondents, namely Secretary to the Government in the Revenue Department as well as the Director Survey and Land Records. According to the petitioners in these two contempt cases the respondents have not complied with the directions contained in the judgment passed by the learned single Judge in letter and spirit. The contention appears to be that there is no meaningful compliance of the directions in the judgment. 2. In this context it may be profitable to refer to the relevant portion of the judgment rendered by the learned single judge: "Under these circumstances these writ petitions will stand allowed and it is declared that the petitioners are entitled for exemption from passing the test for promotion to the post of Superintendent of Survey and Land Records and as such were entitled to be considered for promotion in R.P.Nos.765, 772 & 773 of 2010 5 accordance with their seniority in the cadre of Head Surveyors. Respondents 1 and 2 in writ petition Nos . 2811/05 and 24013/05 are directed to do the needful immediately to promote/appoint the petitioners in those cases by transfer to the post of Superintendent of Survey and Land Records with effect from the date on which the senior most among their juniors was given such promotion." 3. The main grievance of the petitioners appears to be that, they have not been given all the consequential promotions though they were promoted as Superintendent of Survey pursuant to the judgment. According to the petitioners the respondents were bound to give them all consequential promotions which fell due after their promotion to the cadre of Superintendent of Survey. While promoting them to the post of Superintendent of Survey their juniors who had already been holding the post of Superintendent of Survey were again promoted to the higher post. 4. Having carefully perused the judgment of the learned single Judge, we do not find any ground to proceed against the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act. The decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in J.S.Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar [1996(6)SCC 291] will lend support to our view. 5. In the above decision the apex court had occasion to deal with an almost identical case. Their lordship held that “once R.P.Nos.765, 772 & 773 of 2010 6 there is an order passed by the Government on the basis of the directions issued by the Court, there arises a fresh cause of action to seek redressal in an appropriate forum. The preparation of the seniority list may be wrong or may be right or may or may not be in conformity with the directions, but that would be a fresh cause of action for the aggrieved party to avail of the opportunity of judicial review. However that cannot be considered to be the willful violation of the order. After re- exercising the Judicial review in contempt proceedings, a fresh direction by the learned single Judge cannot be given to redraw the seniority list”. 6. Keeping in view the above dictum and the order passed by the Supreme Court, we do not find any reason to entertain these Contempt of Court Cases. The review petitions and Contempt of Court Cases are dismissed. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE rkc