Kerala High Court
A.P.Shyno vs Pookunji A on 3 February, 2020
Bench: K.Vinod Chandran, Ashok Menon
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON
FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 11TH MAGHA, 1941
RP.No.91 OF 2020 IN OP(KAT). 506/2017
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP(KAT) 506/2017(Z) OF HIGH COURT
OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/S:
A.P.SHYNO,
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O.ALEXANDER, RETIRED SENIOR CIVIL POLICE
OFFICER, RESIDING AT CARMEL, NEDUMBANA P.O.,
KOLLAM - 691 576, PHONE 9400171953.
BY ADVS.
DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.)
SRI.S.VIBHEESHANAN
SRI.K.SUDHINKUMAR
SRI.S.K.ADHITHYAN
SRI.SABU PULLAN
SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM)
RESPONDENTS:
1 POOKUNJI A.,
S/O.ALIYARUKUNJU, AGED 57 YEARS, RETIRED SUB
INSPECTOR O POLICE (SUPERNUMERARY/UPGRADATION),
Q 4259, CHATHANNOOR POLICE STATION, PIN - 691
302, KOLLAM CITY, KERALA,RESIDING AT JARIYATHU
MANZIL, KODANVILA JUNCTION,PEROOR, THATTARKONAM
P.O.,KOLLAM - 691 005.
2 B.ANANDAKUTTAN NAIR,
AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.BHASKARAN NAIR, SUB
INSPECTOR (UPGRADATION), SREE PADMANABHA SWAMI
TEMPLE SECURITY WING, FORT P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 023, RESIDING AT
GANGA, RNRA-53, MUTTADA P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA - 695 025.
RP No.91/2020
2
3 BALAN NAIR V.,
AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.VIKRAMAN NAIR, SUB INSPECTOR
OF POLICE (UPGRADATION), CANTONMENT POLICE
STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001, RESIDING AT
KRISHNA, PMRA-93, MUTTADA P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA - 695 025.
4 R.SASIDHARA KURUP,
AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.RAGHAVAN PILLAI, SUB
INSPECTOR OF POLICE (SUPERNUMERARY), COASTAL
POLICE STATION, NEENDAKARA, KOLLAM - 691 582,
RESIDING AT MANNASSERIL, ADHINAD SOUTH,
KATTIKADAVU P.O., PIN - 690 542, (VIA)
KARUNGAPPALLY, KOLLAM, KERALA.
5 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,KERALA - 695 001.
6 PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HOME, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA - 695 001.
7 STATE POLICE CHIEF,
POLICE HEADQUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA - 695 010.
8 SATHEESH KUMAWR G.,
SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE (UPGRADATION),
ADMINISTRATIVE WING, SBCID(HQ) PATTOM P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA - 695 004.
9 M.E.KURIAKOSE,AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.ISSAC,
ADDITIONAL SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALIYAR
POLICE STATION, IDUKKI DISTRICT, RESIDING AT
MARAVETTIKKAL HOUSE, MEKKADAMPU P.O., KADATHI,
MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM - 682 316.
10 SALIM K.EDASSERY,
S/O.KUTTAPPAN, ASSISTANT SUB INSPECTOR OF
POLICE, CBCID, OCW1 SUB UNIT, PATHANAMTHITTA
DISTRICT, RESIDING AT MOULIKA HOUSE,NELLIMUKKU,
THIRUMULLAVARAM P.O.,KOLLAM - 691 012.
RP No.91/2020
3
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.GP SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH, SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN
PILLAY, SRI.S.M.PRASANTH
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
31.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
RP No.91/2020
4
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 31st day of January, 2020 Vinod Chandran, J.
The review petition is filed from a common judgment, in about 13 original petitions.
2. We have heard the learned Senior Government Pleader Sri.Antomny Mukkath for the State.
3. The question dealt with was of seniority with respect to Armed Police Battalion (Battalion) personnel who were subsequently transferred to District Armed Reserve (Reserve), both separate units of appointment for recruitment of Police Constables. Transfer from the Battalion to the Reserve required a specific stint of service in the former. To preserve seniority from the date of advice, persons appointed to the Battalion were granted seniority from the date of their advice by introducing a proviso to Rule 3 of the Special RP No.91/2020 5 Rules, in 1980. Simultaneously a second proviso was also added so as to not adversely affect the seniority of the Reserve personnel, who were appointed prior to that amendment.
4. Later the Government in 1989, decided to stop direct recruitment to the Reserve and again amended Rule 3 of the Special Rules. This amendment inadvertently omitted the two provisos brought in earlier and that stood rectified by re-introduction in the year 2017. For considerable period of time the proviso preserving the seniority of the Battalion personnel was omitted from the amendment, which was nevertheless not noticed. The subsequent amendment brought in was upheld by the Tribunal but the retrospective effect was set aside. In the Original Petition, the order of the Tribunal was reversed to the extent of the interference made to the retrospective effect. This was also on the ground that the later amendment, re-introducing the provisos, omitted inadvertently, RP No.91/2020 6 was curative in nature. It was also found that there was no pleading in the original applications as to any promotions having been effected on the basis of the deranged seniority.
5. The review petitioner contends that there was an OA filed challenging the retrospective amendment, which was allowed in part, from which there is no original petition filed. This judgment was delivered without hearing the review petitioner who was the applicant in that O.A. The learned Government Pleader submits that as of now there is an original petition filed. In such circumstances, we do not find any reason to attempt a review on the question of the review petitioner having been not heard. If at all the review petitioner has a contention that there is a reconsideration required, the review petitioner is entitled to raise it at the time of consideration of the original petition now said to have been preferred from the decision in the O.A, in which the review RP No.91/2020 7 petitioners were the applicants.
We do not find any reason to review the order as such, also since, from out of 13 O.P (KAT) only one Review is attempted. We reject the review petition inlimine.
Sd/-
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE.
Sd/-
ASHOK MENON, JUDGE.
Jma/