Kerala High Court
Mani.C. Pillai D/O. Late ... vs C.Muraleedharan on 28 January, 2008
Bench: C.N.Ramachandran Nair, T.R.Ramachandran Nair
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 10400 of 2004(S)
1. MANI.C. PILLAI D/O. LATE CHANDRASEKHARAN
... Petitioner
2. MADHU RAMAKRISHNAN,
Vs
1. C.MURALEEDHARAN, UPPER DIVISION CLERK
... Respondent
2. C.VILASINI, UPPER DIVISION CLERK,
3. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
4. THE DIRECTOR, INTEGRATED FISHERIES
For Petitioner :SRI.R.SREERAJ
For Respondent :SRI.P.K.RAVISANKAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :28/01/2008
O R D E R
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
&
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ.
=========================
WP(C).No. 10400 of 2004-S.
=========================
Dated this the 28th day of January, 2008.
C.N.Ramachandran Nair, J.
J U D G M E N T
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the writ petition and the counsel for the contesting respondents. The order under challenge is Ext.P7 issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal on an application filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein challenging the seniority list of Upper Division Clerks in the Integrated Fisheries Project which is a department under the Government of India. The first respondent herein along with one Mr.M.R.Mohanan Nair challenged the seniority of another person over them which led to Ext.P1 order of the CAT in OA.No.366/1998. It is seen from the said order of the Tribunal that it has only directed refixation of seniority based on the recruitment rules which provided for appointment of Upper Division Clerks through promotion from Lower Division Clerks WP(C).No. 10400 of 2004-S. 2 on the basis of seniority as well as test qualification. Out of every three posts two have to be filled up under the rules on seniority basis and one who passes the test. The problem on fixation of seniority cropped up because of appointment of one Mr.S.D.Raju as a U.D.Clerk on transfer from Agriculture Ministry to the Integrated Fisheries Project. Even though the said Mr.Raju was appointed from out side the department by transfer on 7.11.1991, no one questioned it. In the first seniority list of L.D.Clerks Mr.Raju's appointment was treated as one under the test quota. However, when seniority was refixed based on Ext.P1 order of the CAT, the department shifted Mr.Raju from test quota to seniority quota. The seniority list is produced as Ext.P2 which was challenged in the OA filed by respondents 1 and 2 which led to Ext.P1 order of the CAT. It is against this order the petitioners have filed this Original Petition. The consequential order issued pursuant to Ext.P7 is produced as Ext.P9. We find that Mr.Raju who was appointed as U.D.Clerk on 7.11.1991 though retained in the seniority list of U.D.Clerks with effect from the date of his appointment is neither treated as an appointee from the seniority quota or from the test quota. In other words, he is given an independent status and the appointment WP(C).No. 10400 of 2004-S. 3 in accordance with the recruitment rules to the U.D.Clerk post was made after taking into account the remaining vacancies in the same ratio. Both sides have no dispute on this issue also. The question therefore to be considered is whether the Tribunal's order declaring Mr.Raju as not belonging to any quota but is entitled to independent status is right or wrong. We feel the Tribunal's order is quite reasonable and equitable because by operation of the Tribunal's order one post is taken out of the available vacancies and assigned to a person who was appointed by the department on transfer from another State probably on his request. So long as Mr.Raju is entitled to continue in service in the same department which is not contested by the respondents, he is entitled the seniority with effect from the date of his appointment. This is the only consequence which is achieved by the Tribunal's order. Obviously the petitioners' request to treat Mr.Raju as appointed from the seniority quota is not tenable for the reason that he never served as L.D.Clerk in the Integrated Fisheries Project and his seniority cannot be compared to others in service. Similar is the position so far as test quota is concerned because he has not worked as an L.D.Clerk in the Integrated Fisheries Project nor has passed any WP(C).No. 10400 of 2004-S. 4 test. In the circumstances we find in Ext.P9 seniority list which is admittedly in accordance with recruitment rules Mr.Raju's position is retained by the Tribunal. We find no ground to interfere with the impugned order.
The Writ Petition is therefore dismissed.
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.
kvs/-