NANU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS in both the Original petitions are police officers whose grievance is that they were not promoted to the Indian Police Service whilst their juniors were preferred Petitioners in OP 4429/83 challenge the inclusion of respondents 5 to 8 in the I. P. S. cadre ignoring their legitimate claims Petitioner in OP 7292/1983 challenges the inclusion of respondents 6 to 8 in the I. P. S. cadre on the ground that they are juniors to him Seniority of additional 9th respondent is admitted by the petitioner Petitioners in both the Original Petitions contended that they have unblemished service, that they have obtained very many awards and that the select committee obviously ignored their claims and selected their juniors

(2.) PETITIONER in OP 7292/1983 states that he was promoted as Assistant Commandant, Malabar Special Police on 23rd March, 1968 as per Ext. P6 order that the post is equivalent to the post of Dy. S. P. and that the select committee superseded him and gave him a low ranking chiefly because correct service particulars were not furnished to them. It is also pointed out that his reversion was probably highlighted before the Select Committee whereas his reinstatement was suppressed from them Another contention is that 6th respondent (in OP. 7292/1983) who has been declared to be junior to the petitioner was shown as senior before the Select Committee and this obviously influenced them against his claims. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in OP. 4543 of 1977 this court had held that the petitioner is senior to the 6th respondent and as that decision has become final, petitioner's seniority vis-a-vis 6th respondent is beyond any challenge.

(3.) CONTENTION of the contesting respondents is that the select list has been prepared by the Select Committee considering the entire service records and they have chosen to give ranking to all the candidates and as the petitioners in both the Original petitions did not come within the ranking of one to ten they cannot challenge the select list on the ground that their seniors were preferred against them.