K. KOOLIKAN Vs. K. MADHAVI KUTTY
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K. Madhavi Kutty
Click here to view full judgement.
JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA C.J. -
(1.) THE appellant joined service as a Clerk on May 15, 1986. The first respondent was appointed as a Telex Operator on November 7, 1984. Despite having joined after the first respondent the appellant claims to be senior to the first respondent Is his claim tenable? This is the short question that arises for consideration in this appeal. The relevant facts may be noticed.
(2.) ON September 27, 1980, the Government issued an order declaring that persons working as Cashier/Clerk/ Typist/ Steno -Typist shall be eligible for promotion to the post of Junior Accountant. Some time later the Bank proposed the inclusion of the post of Telex Operator. The Bank's proposal was approved by the Registrar vide order dated March 30, 1995. A copy of this order is on record as Ext.P2. On October 10, 1995, the Registrar issued instructions directing the preparation of a combined seniority list of persons working on different posts who were eligible for promotion to the post of Junior Accountant. It was also directed that the claim of the first respondent shall be considered. A copy of the communication is Ext. P3.
In pursuance to the directions of the Registrar, the seniority list was prepared. The appellant was placed at serial No. 10. The first respondent was assigned her position as serial No. 4. Aggrieved by the action, the appellant filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, viz. O.P. No. 3199/1996. This petition was disposed of with the direction that the appellant may file an appeal. In compliance with the direction given by the Court, the appellant filed an appeal before the State Government. It was accepted vide order dated November 4, 1996. The Government took the view that the seniority of the first respondent had to be fixed with effect from March 30, 1995 when the post of Telex Operator was included in the list of eligible categories. A copy of the order is on record as Ext.P8.
(3.) THE first respondent challenged this order through a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The present appellant was impleaded as a respondent. The learned single Judge, on consideration of the matter, found that the writ petitioner - now, the 1st respondent, was entitled to the benefit of the entire service rendered by her since November 7, 1984. Her claim was upheld. Thus, the writ petition was allowed. The order dated November 4, 1996 passed by the Government was set aside. Hence, this appeal by the 4th respondent in the writ petition.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.