Abdul Azeez P. v State of Kerala & Others (OP(KAT) Nos. 4672/2013, 4674/2013 & 107/2014), High Court of Kerala
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- V. Chitambaresh
- Ashok Menon
- Judgment Date
- 2019-08-13
- Court Decision / Holding
- The original petitions are dismissed. No costs.
- Final Disposition
- The original petitions are dismissed. No costs.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Abdul Azeez P.
- K.K.Sukumaran
- K. John
- P. Latha
Respondents
- State of Kerala represented by the Secretary to Government, Public Works Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram 695 001
- The Chief Engineer (Admin), PWD, Public Office, Museum PO, Thiruvananthapuram 695 033
- L. Beena, Asst. Executive Engineer, KSPTE, Statue, GPO, Thiruvananthapuram 695 001
- R. Anil Kumar, Asst. Executive Engineer, Roads Sub Division, Peerumedu, Idukki 685 531
- A Suresh Kumar, Asst. Executive Engineer, NH South Circle, Public Office, Museum, Thiruvananthapuram 695 033
- B. VinU, Asst. Executive Engineer, Roads Sub Division, Pathanamthitta 689 645
- M. Jayakrishnan, Asst. Executive Engineer (Technical), Roads Division, Kalpetta, Wayanad 673 121
- D. Sajan, Executive Engineer, Roads Sub Division, Vaikom, Vaikom P.O, Kottayam 686 141
- C.S. Jyotheedranath, Asst. Executive Engineer, PWD Buildings Sub Division, Neyyattinkara, Thiruvananthapuram 695 121
- Adjuncts Baiju S., Asst. Executive Engineer, PWD Buildings Sub Division, Alappuzha
- Adjuncts Sasikumar, Asst. Executive Engineer, PWD Buildings Sub Division, Attingal
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • P. Nandakumar
- • George Varghese (Perumpallikuttiyil)
- • A.R. Dileep
- • Manu Sebastian
Counsels for Respondents
- • Antony Mukkath
- • S. Ramesh
- • Naveen.T
- • SMT. Pooja Surendaran
- • S.P. Aravindakshan Pillay
- • Smt. N. Santha
- • S.K.A. Balan
- • Sri Peter Jose Christo
- • Sri S.A. Anand
Case Synopsis & Summary
These original petitions under OP(KAT) challenge the recasting of the seniority list of Assistant Engineers in the Public Works Department. The petitions target Annexure A8, which lists 318 incumbents whose seniority would be affected, and seek to have the seniority recast after hearing all affected persons, with Annexure A9/A10 orders directing the Government to consider and pass final orders within four months. The petitioners contend that the seniority list and its changes bear directly on eligibility for promotion and that due process, including hearing of all affected, is essential. The Government, however, argues that the subject is a selection post (Assistant Executive Engineer) and mere reallocation of seniority would not automatically confer promotion; many petitioners already faced retirement and the orders of promotion to many had already been issued. The Court notes that a large set of persons in Annexure A8 were not impleaded in the petitions, and relies on the principle that all affected parties must be properly identified and impleaded, citing Annes v. State of Kerala to illustrate the importance of proper notice and representation. Ultimately, the court holds that the petitions fail to challenge the underlying promotion orders and that recasting seniority without challenging promotions is futile. The petitions are dismissed with no costs.
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioners contend that the seniority list (Annexure A8) directly affects eligibility for promotion and that final orders must reflect a fair, hear-and-notice procedure for all those named in Annexure A8. They seek recasting of seniority and enforcement of Annexures A9/A10 directions so that all affected parties are heard and final, legitimate orders are passed. They emphasize the importance of due process and the right to contest seniority impacting career progression, particularly in a cadre where many posts are selection-based rather than automatic. They argue that the Government should not finalize seniority revisions without comprehensively hearing all those affected and without challenging the underlying promotion orders where applicable.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents argue that recasting seniority cannot by itself guarantee automatic promotions since the post of Assistant Executive Engineer is a selection post. They contend that Annexure A8's seniority reflection, while part of internal cadre management, should not override existing valid promotion orders; mere reallocation of seniority does not entitle automatic promotion and cannot be the subject of a standalone challenge. They point out that 318 individuals listed were not properly impleaded, and that challenging only seniority without addressing existing promotions could be futile. They rely on the Tribunal's and government orders (Annexures A9/A10) as the procedural mechanism to finalize seniority and promotions, asserting that the petitions fail to establish a valid, independent remedy and that many petitioners had already retired. Ultimately, they defend the Government’s approach as a matter of cadre administration and emphasized that the underlying promotions remain unaffected by recast seniority alone.
Cited Precedents (4)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Annes v. State of Kerala | 2018(1) KLT SN 21 | Positive | Cited to support the proposition that broad impleading of all affected parties is necessary and that notices must be properly issued to those affected. |
| O.P. No. 10090/1998 | OP 10090/1998 | Mentioned Only | Exhibit cited as part of the Appendix; underlying judgment referenced but not key to the reasoning in the main decision. |
| O.P. No. 9430/1990 | OP 9430/1990 | Mentioned Only | Exhibit cited in Appendix; used for background context rather than as a binding precedent in the decision. |
| O.P. No. 1459/93 | OP 1459/93 | Mentioned Only | Exhibit cited in Appendix; background reference rather than a central authority for the court’s reasoning. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Abdul Azeez P. v State of Kerala & Others (OP(KAT) Nos. 4672/2013, 4674/2013 & 107/2014), High Court of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.