Kerala High Court
Satheesan.T vs Registrar (Sj) on 15 January, 2001
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/20TH JYAISHTA, 1938
WP(C).No. 34316 of 2008 (R)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
1. SATHEESAN.T., ATTENDER, DISTRICT COURT, THALASSERY.
2. SAJEEVAN.C, ATTENDER, DISTRICT COURT,THALASSERY.
3. RAJEEVAN.V.M, ATTENDER, MUNSIFF'S COURT, THALASSERY.
4. PAVITHRAN.E, ATTENDER, SUB COURT, THALASSERY.
5. SAJEEVAN.V, ATTENDER, MUNSIFF'S COURT,PAYYANNUR.
6. LAILA BEEGUM.A.K, ATTENDER, MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOOTHUPARAMBA.
7. ASHOKAN.P.P, PROCESS SERVER,MUNSIFF'S COURT,
KOOTHUPARAMBA.
8. GANESHAN.A, PROCESS SERVER, SUB COURT, PAYYANNUR.
BY ADVS.SRI.M.SASINDRAN
SRI.M.V.BIPIN
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. REGISTRAR (SJ), HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2. THE DISTRICT JUDGE, DISTRICT COURT, THALASSERY.
3. MANOHARAN.C.K, PROCESS SERVER,
MUNSIFF'S COURT, KUTHUPARAMBA.
4. SURENDRA BABU, PROCESS SERVER, MUNSIFF COURT,
KUTHUPARAMBA.
5. DIVAKARAN.V, PROCESS SERVER, MUNSIFF'S COURT, TALIPARAMBA.
6. VINODAN.K.M, PROCESS SERVER, DISTRICT COURT, THALASSERY.
7. RAJAN NALOTH, ATTENDER, SUB COURT, THALASSERY.
R,R1 BY ADV. SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH
R,R3-7 BY ADV. SRI.P.M.PAREETH
R,R1 BY ADV. SMT.K.RADHAMANI AMMA
R,R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN (THYKOODAM)
R1 & 2 BY ADV. SMT.V.P.SEEMANDINI (SR.),STANDING COUNSEL
R1 & 2 BY ADV. SRI.M.R.ANISON
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-06-2016,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).NO.34316/2008
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
P1:TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.1.2001 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT
JUDGE, THALASSERY.
P2:TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31.5.2001 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT
JUDGE, THALASSERY.
P3:TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5.11.2001 PROMOTING THE PETITIONERS
TO THE POST OF PROCESS SERVERS.
P4:TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31.1.2002 PROMOTING THE PETITIONERS
TO THE POST OF PROCESS SERVERS.
P5:TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST FOR INTER DISTRICT TRANSFER SUBMITTED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE DISTRICT JUDGE, THALASSERY.
P6:TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.6.2001 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT
JUDGE, THALASSERY.
P7:A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS).NO.4 DATED 2.1.1961.
P8:TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 9.5.2006 FILED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT BEFORE THE DISTRICT JUDGE, THALASSERY.
P9:TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO
EXT.P8 PETITION BEFORE THE DISTRICT JUDGE, THALASSERY.
P10:TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.11.2007 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT
JUDGE, THALASSERY.
P11:A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.12.2007 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT
JUDGE, THALASSERY PROMOTING THE PETITIONERS AS ATTENDERS.
P12:A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.2.2008 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT
JUDGE, THALASSERY PROMOTING THE PETITIONERS AS ATTENDERS.
P13:A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL PETITION FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
P14:A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 25.6.2008 FILED BY THE 1ST
PETITIONER BEFORE THE REGISTRAR (SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY).
P15:A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.9.2008 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
P16:A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5.11.2008 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A.TO JUDGE
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
==========================
W.P.(C). No.34316 OF 2008
==========================
Dated this the 10th day of June, 2016
JUDGMENT
This writ petition has been filed challenging Exts.P15 and P16 orders. At the time of filing of this writ petition, petitioners 1 to 6 were working as Attenders and petitioners 7 and 8 were working as Process Servers. The petitioners were directly recruited as Peons in the Civil Judicial District Court, Thalassery either under Ext.P1 order or Ext.P2 order. Later, petitioner Nos.1, 3, 4 and 8 were promoted as Process Servers as per Ext.P3 order dated 5.11.2001 and petitioner Nos.2, 5, 6 and 7 were promoted as Process Servers as per Ext.P4 dated 31.1.2002. While they were working as Peons, the respondents 3 to 7 who were working in Kasaragod District were given inter district transfer as per Ext.P6 order dated 28.6.2001 joined in the last grade service of Civil Judicial District of Thalassery. Going by Ext.P6, they were to take position as juniors to the Peons working in W.P.(C).34316/2008 2 the new District. It was accepting such terms that they obtained transfers and joined in the new District. After joining the new District, the respondents 3 to 7 filed representations before the second respondent in the year 2006. Ext.P8 is the representation submitted by the 3rd respondent in that regard. It would reveal that they sought for reviewing Ext.P6 whereby they were placed below the peons as on 28.6.2001 and to place them below the Process Servers as on 28.6.2001. The petitioners filed objection to the representation submitted by the respondents. Ext.P9 is the objection filed by the first petitioner. As per Ext.P10 dated 16.11.2007, the second respondent rejected the representations filed by respondents 3 to 7. Subsequent to the rejection of the representations submitted by the respondents, the petitioners herein were promoted to the post of Attender under Exts.P11 and P12 orders. Challenging Ext.P10, the third respondent filed Ext.P13 petition. Needless to say that other party respondents also filed similar petitions challenging Ext.P10 order. The first petitioner filed Ext.P14 objection in the said petition against the prayers in Ext.P13. The other petitioners also filed similar objections. W.P.(C).34316/2008 3 The first respondent passed Ext.P15 order on Ext.P13 and similar representations filed by the other party respondents. As a sequel to Ext.P15 order, virtually, for implementing the same, the second respondent passed Ext.P16 order reverting petitioners 1 to 6 from the post of Attender to the post of Process Server. It is in the said circumstances that captioned writ petition has been filed challenging Exts.P15 and P16 orders.
2.I have heard the learned counsel on both sides. The learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that virtually under Ext.P15 order what was done is only a correction of the illegality crept in Ext.P6 order. It is submitted that the fact that the party respondents who were initially appointed in Kasaragod District as Process Servers on the advice of the Kerala Public Service commission sought only for inter district transfer and even after their inter district transfer under Ext.P6, they were posted only as Process Servers cannot be disputed. In fact, that position is not disputed before us. It is submitted that there is no case for the respondents that party respondents sought for an inter district transfer after getting reverted W.P.(C).34316/2008 4 to the post of Peons. The provisions under the Special Rules of Last Grade Service Rules and Exts.P3 and P4 would reveal that the post of Process Server is virtually the promotion post of Peons. As noticed hereinbefore, the petitioners were promoted as Process Servers from the post of Peon as per Exts.P3 and P4. It is to be noted that the fact that the Process Server is a promotion post of Peon is admitted by the petitioners. Virtually, this crucial aspect was not given due consideration at the time of rejection of Ext.P8 and similar representations in and vide Ext.P10. Against Ext.P10, the third respondent filed Ext.P13. While considering Ext.P13, this crucial aspect was given due attention and it is evident that the party respondents were not reverted from the post of Process Servers to the post of Peon while granting inter district transfer. In fact, their inter district transfer was from the post of Process Server and even after their inter district transfer, they were posted only as Process Servers despite the existence of a condition as aforementioned in Ext.P6. There is nothing in Ext.P6 to show that the respondents 3 to 7 were reverted to the post of Peon and they were given as Peon, as W.P.(C).34316/2008 5 per Ext.P6. The mistake committed while passing Ext.P10 was virtually corrected while passing Ext.P15 order based on receipt of Ext.P13 and similar representations. The learned standing counsel further submitted that Ext.P16 is only a consequential order. In short, the submission is that when the respondents are not disputing the fact that the post of Process Server is the promotion post of Peons and that the respondents who were working as Process Servers in Kasaragod district were transferred without being reverted to the post of Peons and joined in Thalassery Civil District only as Process Servers, there is absolutely no justification in challenging Exts.P15 and P16 orders whereby the first respondent corrected the irregularity, rather illegality committed while issuing Ext.P6 by incorporating the condition that the transferee should take seniority only in the post of Peon. The learned counsel for the petitioners even while admitting the aforementioned facts relied on a decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Pavithran v. State of Kerala [2009(4) KLT 20 (FB)]. The said decision is to the effect that whenever an adverse order is passed against a person, unless it is challenged before the appropriate forum W.P.(C).34316/2008 6 within appropriate time limit, the said order would become final and the person affected by it would be bound by it. I have carefully gone through the decision in Pavithran's case. A scanning of the said decision would reveal that the Full Bench did not lay down the dictum that in such circumstances it would take away the right of the appointing authority or transferring authority in setting at right an illegality crept in the order of transfer. It should be presumed that such an inherent power is vested with the appointing authority as also the transferring authority. The fact that the respondents were working in the post of Process Server and even on their transfer under Ext.P6 which carried a condition adverse to them to the effect that their seniority would be only below the Peons working in Civil Judicial District of Thalassery, they were posted only in the post of Process Server is not in dispute. In other words, admittedly, the objectionable clause in Ext.P6 has never been pressed into service. As already noticed, nothing is there on record to show that inter district transfer of the party respondents was effected after reverting them to the post of Peons. The contention of the petitioners that the respondents were W.P.(C).34316/2008 7 illegally granted seniority in the cadre of Process Servers cannot be sustained as admittedly it is only after their joining in Thalassery as Process Servers that vide Exts.P3 and P4, the petitioners were promoted to the post of Process Servers. When these facts are not in dispute it cannot be said that the first respondent had committed an illegality in passing Ext.P15. Ext.P16 is only a consequential order of Ext.P15. In troth, what was done by the first respondent is only setting right the illegality committed in Ext.P6 as also while rejecting Ext.P8 under Ext.P10. When justice is done to the respondents 3 to 7 as per Ext.P15, it does not call for any interference. In such circumstances, this writ petition is liable to fail and accordingly, it is dismissed.
Sd/-
C.T. RAVIKUMAR
(JUDGE)
spc/
W.P.(C).34316/2008 8
W.P.(C).34316/2008 9
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
JUDGMENT
September,2010
W.P.(C).34316/2008 10