Kerala High Court
B.Sridharan vs High Court Of Kerala on 18 September, 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/19TH MAGHA, 1938
WP(C).No. 17298 of 2014 (R)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
1. B.SRIDHARAN,
CENTRAL NAZIR, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT/
MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, OTTAPPALAM.
2. K.MURALEEDHRAN,
HEAD CLERK, MUNCIFF COURT, OTTAPPALAM.
3. V.M.ANILKUKMAR,
SENIOR CLERK (UD CLERK), ADDITIONAL DISTRICT/
MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, OTTAPPALAM.
4. P.JAYASREE,
SENIOR CLERK (UD CLERK), ADDITIONAL DISTRICT/
MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, OTTAPPALAM.
5. LATHA K.S.,
BENCH CLERK GR-I, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT/
MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, OTTAPPALAM.
6. M.JAYAKRISHNAN,
HEAD CLERK, MUNCIFF COURT, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD.
7. M.P.SIVAPRASAD,
BENCH CLERK GR.II, SUB COURT, OTTAPALAM.
8. M.PRADEEP,
HEAD CLERK, MUNSIFF COURT, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD.
9. CYRIAC V.C.,
BENCH CLERK GRDE-II, SUB COURT, PALAKKAD.
10. SURESH C.
BENCH CLERK GRDE-II, SUB COURT, PALAKKAD.
11. SARASWATHY P.P.,
BENCH CLERK GR-I, ADDL.DISTRICT COURT-IV, PALAKKAD
msv/
-2-
-2-
WP(C).No. 17298 of 2014 (R)
----------------------------
12. MANIKANDAN S.,
SENIOR CLERK (UD CLERK), DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD.
13. RAMYALAKSHMY P.A.,
SENIOR CLERK (UD CLERK), DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD.
14. SAJEESH P.,
BENCH CLERK GR-II, SUB COURT, OTTAPPALAM,
(NOW ON DEPUTQTION AS SECRETARY,
TALUK LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE, MANNARKKAD).
15. K.ANILA,
SENIOR CLERK (UD CLERK), MUNISIFF MAGISTRATE COURT,
MANNARKKAD.
16. U.SASEENDRAN,
SENIOR CLERK (UD CLERK), MUNSIFF MAGISRATE COURT,
PATTAMBI.
17. P.K.AJAIKUMAR,
SENIOR CLERK (UD CLERK), MUNSIFF MAGISRATE COURT,
MANNARKKAD.
18. T.SUNDARESAN,
BENCH CLERK GR-I, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT-III,
PALAKKAD.
19. N.CHENTHAMARA,
BENCH CLERK GR-I, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIM TRIBUNAL,
PALAKKAD.
20. S.HELEN,
CENTRAL NAZIR, DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD.
21. M.ABDUL HAKKIM,
SENIOR CLERK (UD CLERK), MUNSIFF COURT, ALATHUR.
22. P.MANOJ,
BENCH CLERK GR-II, NOW ON DEPUTATION AS SECRETARY,
TALUK LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE, KOZHENCHERRY,
PATHANAMTHITTA).
BY ADVS.SRI.V.V.ASOKAN (SR.)
SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER
SRI.R.JAIKRISHNA
msv/
-3-
-3-
WP(C).No. 17298 of 2014 (R)
----------------------------
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR
(SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY), ERNAKULAM-682 031.
2. THE DISTRICT JUDGE, PALAKKAD-678 001.
3. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, PERSONAL &
ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
4. P.A.KUTTAPPAN,
U.D.CLERK, (SENIOR CLERK), SUB COURT,
PALAKKAD, (NOW WORKING AS HEAD CLERK,
SUB COURT, OTTAPPALAM).
5. V.SUBRAMANIAN,
U.D.CLERK (SENIOR CLERK), ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
COURT/MACT, OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD-678 001.
6. R.PRADEEPKUMAR,
U.D. CLERK (SENIOR CLERK), DISTRICT COURT,
PALAKKAD-678 001.
R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.BABU PAUL
R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.MARY BEENA JOSEPH
R4-R6 BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY
SMT.N.SANTHA
SRI.K.A.BALAN
SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO
SRI.S.A.ANAND
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 25-01-2017 THE COURT ON 08-02-2017, DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
msv/
WP(C).No. 17298 of 2014 (R)
---------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER
DATED 18/09/2012.
EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE
6TH RESPONDENT DATED 15/5/2012
EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 24/2/2012.
EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT
DATED 3/10/2012
EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 21/3/2009.
EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 8/7/2013.
EXT.P6(A) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 08/7/2013
EXT.P6(B) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 8/7/2013.
EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT
DATED 18/6/2014.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
EXT.R4(a): TRUE COPY OF WPC.NO.5880/2006 DTD.15.11.2006 OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT.
EXT.R4(b): TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL PETITION DTD.7.8.2013
SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE
1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.R4(c): TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL PETITION DTD.25.4.2012
SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE
2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.R4(d): TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD.24.5.2007 IN
WPC.NO.11804/2007 E OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXT.R4(e): TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD.7.2.2008 IN
WPC.NO.33842/2006 D OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S.TO JUDGE
Msv/
ANU SIVARAMAN, J.
-----------------------------------------------
W.P(C).No. 17298 of 2014
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 8th February, 2017
JUDGMENT
The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P3 circular issued by the State Government providing that promotion and restoration of seniority shall be granted to all eligible SC/ST employees in terms of Rule 13A(1)(a) of Part II KS & SSR. Ext.P7 proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 18.06.2014 granting the benefit to respondents 4 to 6 is also under challenge.
2. Heard Sri. V.V. Asokan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri. Babu Paul, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2, Senior Government Pleader appearing for the 3rd respondent and Sri.S.P. Aravindakshan Pillay, learned counsel for respondents 4 to 6.
3. It is contended by learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioners that in Exhibit P2, the contesting respondents had claimed promotion based on Rule 13(A)(1) of KS & SSR providing for temporary exemption from test qualifications to those belonging to SC/ST. It is contended that the claim was WP(C).17298/14 2 belated and that they had not objected to the promotion of the petitioners. Later when they were promoted as U.D.Clerk after they passed the test qualifications, respondents 4 to 6 did not raise any claim for an earlier date. It is further stated that seniority lists of U.D.Clerk were circulated, but the contesting respondents did not object to the higher ranks of the petitioners. It is also contended that in a similar case, the High Court had rejected the claim of SC/ST hands by Ext.P5 order on the ground that the claim raised is belated.
4. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent-High Court contended that Ext.P5 had been challenged before this Court and the writ petition was allowed setting aside Ext.P5 order and directing the respondents to grant the SC/ST employees the benefit of antedated promotions and restoration of seniority and also further promotions. W.A.No.2083 of 2016 filed against the judgment was also dismissed recording that the appellants, who were the contesting respondents in the writ petition, would not be reverted from the posts held by them.
5. This Court in its judgment dated 29.09.2016 in W.P.(C) No.19313/2009 adverted to the contentions identical to those raised by the petitioners herein. It is stated that several promotions were granted and seniority lists were published four WP(C).17298/14 3 times and the concerned employees had not objected. The question of delay and sit back were raised in that case also.
6. This Court held that since the petitioners therein were entitled to temporary exemption from test qualification in terms of Rule 13(A)(1)(a) of Part II KS & SSR, and since what is sought for is the implementation of a special provision incorporated in the Rules in discharge of a constitutional obligation in terms of Article 16(4), Article 46 and Article 335 of the Constitution of India, relief could not be denied to them on the ground of delay or for technical reasons.
7. The only additional ground in this writ petition is with regard to the challenge raised as against Ext.P3 circular. The pleadings raised against Ext.P3 are as follows:
"Ext.P3 Circular is bad in law since it ignores the settled law and binding decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Hon'ble Court. A Full Bench of this Hon'ble Court has made the position clear in 2009 (4) KHC 627. The Circular is heavily loaded against the members of service who do not belong to SC/ST. It disrupts the seniority positions settled in accordance with Rule 27 of the KS & SSR. It gives opportunity to rake up stale claims for promotion and seniority only to one group of employees alone to the disadvantage of a vast majority. It is highly discriminatory. Ext.P3 circular is liable to be struck down".
8. Having considered the contentions advanced, I am of the opinion that the challenge raised against Ext.P3 has also WP(C).17298/14 4 been substantially answered in the judgment of the Learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.19313/2009, the reasoning of which has been affirmed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.2083/2016. Ext.P3, being a circular intended as a beneficial piece of subordinate legislation, was intended to see that the benefits of the provision of law were not denied to eligible SC/ST employees. No contention is raised that interests of efficiency of administration would be compromised in any manner by the grant of promotions and reassignment of seniority to the contesting respondents. Provisions of Articles 16 and 335 of the Constitution of India provide for making of provision in favour of members of SC/ST for relaxation in qualifying marks, lowering standards of evaluation, reservation in matters of promotion etc. Article 46 of the Constitution of India imposes a duty on the State to promote the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the society, and in particular of SC & ST. Ext.P3 circular is evidently one issued on the strength of the said Constitutional provisions. I am of the considered opinion that a challenge to the same on the ground that it might result in affecting the seniority of persons like the petitioners cannot be entertained. As stated earlier, there is no case raised that the operation of the circular would result in WP(C).17298/14 5 affecting the maintenance of efficiency in administration. Such a claim also would not be maintainable since all the contesting respondents had subsequently become test qualified.
In the above circumstances, I do not see any illegality or infirmity in Ext.P3 circular or Ext.P7 order warranting interference. The writ petition, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed.
ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE vgs