V.R. GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals are against the judgment of a learned Judge of this Court in O. P. No. 5634 of 1976, the earlier appeal being by respondents 3 and 13 in the writ petition and the later one by the State. The learned Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed Ext. P-9 proceedings of the Government and directed that the ranks of the writ-petitioners would be retained in Ext. P-4 list as directed by Ext. P-3 order of the Government,

(2.) The petitioners had been recruited as Lower Division Clerks by the Travancore-Cochin Public Service Commission in 1954. Their names were included in the select list for Lower Division Clerks published in 1954. For one reason or the other, the actual appointments were delayed, presumably on account of delay in the intimation of the vacancies by the various Departments concerned. However, vacancies were available in lower categories such as Coypists, Amins etc. in the Judicial Department. The Public Service Commission ascertained willingness of some of the persons in the select list for being appointed to these posts. The writ-petitioners (3 in number) were among those who had signified their willingness without prejudice to their appointments to the posts of Lower Division Clerks in accordance with the select list and they joined as Copyists on 13-8-1956. Some others in the select list were also appointed as Copyists in the Judicial Department without ascertaining their willingness. It was discovered that the Commission was advising persons who occupied lower posts in the advice-list for appointment as Lower Division Clerks This led to the issuance of Ext. P-10 G.O. dated 5-10-1957. The Government recalled that by a G.O. dated 11-7-1956 the Government had ordered that all Copyists in the various Departments selected by the Commission from the list of Clerks without ascertaining their willingness will be eligible for promotion as Clerks. By Ext. P-10 order the Government directed that they are to be given rank above those who were subsequently appointed as Clerks from the same list provided that the persons subsequently appointed were advised for the first time. The writ petitioners were advised as Lower Division Clerks in the various Departments and appointed on 29-8-1961, 31-8-1961 and 5-9-1961 respectively. By Ext. P-2 G.O. dated 14-7-1969, the Government, after examining the question in consultation with the Public Service Commission, ordered that the benefit of Ext. P-10 G.O. will be extended to all those Copyists who were advised as Copyist? from the list of Clerks, after ascertaining their willingness and later on promoted as Clerks as per Government proceedings dated 11-7-1956 or re-advised as Clerks. The respondents fell in the latter category as persons re-advised. By Ext. P-3 proceedings of the Chief Conservator of Forests, Trivandrum dated 3-3-1970 after noticing the history of the recruitment's and the relevant G.Os. bearing on the point, it was ordered that the ranks of 8 persons shown in Ex. P-3 - among whom are the three petitioners be placed in the integrated gradation list as on 1-11-195 & between S.I. Nos. 192 and 193 in the list. The list itself is Ext. P-4 published after finalisation after considering the objections. By Ext. R-3 dated 23-11-1976 the Government informed the Chief Conservator of Forests after drawing attention to Ext. P-2 that as the integrated gradation list as on 1-11-1956 reflected the position as on that date, the names of those who were not actually working as Clerks on the said date had no place in the list. Therefore it was pointed out that the Chief Conservator's action in having fixed the ranks of the respondents in the integrated gradation list was irregular as in consequence of this direction of the Government, the Chief Conservator of Forests issued the impugned order Ext. P-9 stating that the refixation of the rank of the 8 persons shown between Nos. 192 and 193 in the list would be taken up separately and orders passed. The writ petition was to quash Ext. P-9 order and Ext. R-3 letter of the Government and to direct the respondents to implement Exts. P-1 and P-2 orders.

(3.) The learned Judge allowed the writ petition holding that the Government's action in directing the Chief Conservator of Forests to cancel Ext. P-3 was unjustified. The learned Judge referred to a decision of this Court in W.A. No. 164 of 1972. In the said decision a Division Bench of this Court with respect to the Fisheries Department considered the case of the writ-petitioners therein that there was violation of R. 27 (c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules by a G.O. dated 4-7-1969 (a copy of which was Ext. P-4 therein). The Division Bench pointed out that what happened was only the correction of a mistake and the resultant rectification could not therefore be said to be illegal or vitiated. Following the ruling of the Division Bench, the learned Judge was of the view that there can be no question of any invalidity of Ext. P-10 and Ext. P-2 as these were only the correction of a mistake and therefore there could be no violation of S. 115, cl. (7) of the States Reorganisation Act.