IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 14TH KARTHIKA 1930 WA.No. 832 of 2004(D) ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.11146/1999 Dated 17/12/2003 .................... APPELLANT/THIRD PARTY : --------------------------------- SAJU.K.U., PEON, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS.P.O., ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM - 686 560. BY ADV. SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN. RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS : --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. A.R.RAGHAVAN, CLERICAL ASSISTANT, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHI HILLS.P.O., ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM. 2. BABU P.MATHEW, CLERICAL ASSISTANT, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS.P.O., ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM. 3. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS.P.O., ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. 4. K.M.THOMAS, CERICAL ASSISTANT, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS P.O., ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM. WA.No. 832 of 2004(D) 5. D.JANAJAMMA, PEON, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS.P.O., ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM. 6. N.K.RAMANKUTTY, PEON, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS.P.O., ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM. 7. R.SANTHOSH KUMAR, PEON, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS.P.O., ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SRI. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY - R3 SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN - R5 TO R7 SRI.K.RAVIKUMAR THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY & THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JJ. ----------------------------------------------------- W.A. No. 832 of 2004 ------------------------------ Dated this the 5th day of November, 2008 J U D G M E N T J.B. KOSHY, J. The petitioners were peons working in the M.G. University, at the time of filing this petition. Their next promotion post is Clerical Assistant. The method of appointment to that post is by promotion of peons. While so, respondents 3 to 5, who were peons appointed under the dying-in-harness scheme were appointed as Clerical Assistants under the very same scheme. Therefore, the petitioners' promotional chances were blocked by their appointment. The petitioners submit that as per Clause 27 of G.O(P) No.20/92/P&ARD dated 10/04/1992 compassionate appointments once offered will in no case be allowed to be changed.' Later it was modified by G.O.(P) No.45/92/P&ARD that 'the stipulation that appointment once offered will not be allowed to be changed stands revoked. However, appointments once accepted will not be allowed to be changed.' The respondents have already accepted appointment to the post of peons. According to them, under W.A. No. 832 /2004 2 compassionate appointment scheme the appointment under the Dying- in-harness scheme in the university is governed by the above said Govt. orders. So relying on the above quoted portions contained in those G.Os, petitioners contended that respondents 3 to 5 who have already accepted the appointment to the post of peon have no right to get appointment to the post of Clerical Assistant, again under the Dying-in- harness scheme. Since the appellants worked earlier as peons, they can also be appointed on promotion on their turn. Petitioners were also promoted already since there were further vacancies. Here the respondents' appointment were not cancelled, but the learned Judge granted equitable relief as follows: “since the petitioners' grievance can be redressed without sending back respondents 3 to 5, it is ordered that the petitioners, who got promotion during the pendency of the O.P as Clerical Assistants, shall be treated as seniors to those respondents. In other words, the promotion of respondents 3 to 5 shall be treated as provisional up to the promotion of the 2nd petitioner and thereafter, it shall be W.A. No. 832 /2004 3 treated as regular” Based on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajastan Vs. Umrao Singh [1994(6) SCC 560], we are of the opinion that there is no substantial injustice. The appellant who is a third party did not challenge the appointment of the respondents, who were appointed in 1999 and even this writ appeal is filed as 3rd party/appellant and hence he was not able to substantiate any grievous injustice. In the above circumstances there is no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment. Appeal is therefore dismissed. J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE scm