High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2012-11-19Original Petition dismissed; Tribunal’s decisio...

P. E. Jafer & Others v. Administrator, Union Territory of Lakshadweep & Others

Case / Petition Number:OP (CAT) No. 3782 of 2012 (Z)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Manjula Chellur
A.M. Shaffique
Judgment Date: 2012-11-19
Court Decision / Holding: Original Petition is dismissed; Tribunal’s order is upheld; Petitioners’ challenge rejected.
Final Disposition: Original Petition dismissed; Tribunal’s decision upheld.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

P.E. Jafer
A.P. Fathahulla
M. Abdul Hakeem
M. Basheer

Respondents

The Administrator, Union Territory of Lakshadweep, Kavaratti
The Superintendent of Police, Union Territory of Lakshadweep, Kavaratti
A. Sayed Koya
Ajithkumar V.
A.P. Kasmi

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. M.V. Thamban

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. S. Radhakrishnan, SC, Lakshadweep Admin.

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Kerala High Court judgment deals with OP (CAT) No. 3782 of 2012 challenging a Central Administrative Tribunal order regarding promotions to the posts of Assistant Sub Inspector (Wireless Operator) and Assistant Sub Inspector (Radio Technician) from a rank list (Ext. P2). Petitioners P.E. Jafer, A.P. Fathahulla, M. Abdul Hakeem, and M. Basheer were included in the rank list on merit-cum-seniority and contended that five vacancies arising in the same year, due to retirements, should have been filled from the list without forcing a fresh examination, given that the list already existed for the notified 16 posts. They relied on Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers' Association v. State of Gujarat and others (1994 KHC 987) to argue that a rank list should be kept alive until all vacancies are exhausted. Respondents contended that only 16 vacancies were notified and that the list could be kept alive only to the extent guided by the notification; any further vacancies could be filled via another merit-based examination to ensure opportunities for all meritorious candidates, including islanders who faced transportation barriers. The High Court upheld the Tribunal’s reasoning, noting the absence of a controlling circular indicating indefinite life of the rank list, and held that newer examinations may fill vacancies arising subsequently on merit-cum-seniority. The petition was dismissed.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Merit-cum-seniority principle for promotions
Rank list life tied to circular/notification

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners argued that since five vacancies arose in the selection year due to retirements, they, already included in the Ext. P2 rank list (Nos. 17–20), should be eligible for appointment in that very year. They contended that keeping the rank list alive beyond the originally notified vacancies is essential to ensure merit-based promotion, and a subsequent examination to fill the additional vacancies would violate the principle of fairness. They relied on the Gujarat case (1994 KHC 987) to assert that a rank list must be maintained until vacancies are exhausted.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents asserted that only 16 vacancies were notified. The selection process was to be guided by the notification, with the rank list kept alive only for filling those notified vacancies. They argued there was no obligation to hold the list alive for all possible vacancies, especially beyond the period specified in the notification. To ensure opportunities for all meritorious candidates, including islanders who could not attend earlier exams due to transport constraints, another examination for subsequent vacancies was permissible. There was no circular or rule mandating indefinite lifeline for the rank list.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gujarat State Dy. Executives Engineers' Association v. State of Gujarat and others	1994 KHC 987	Distinguished	The Kerala High Court cites this Gujarat case to illustrate that the earlier decision rested on a circular indicating how long a rank list should remain alive; since such material is not present in the current case, the court distinguishes it and finds it not applicable to the present facts.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

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 P. E. Jafer & Others v. Administrator, Union Territory of Lakshadweep & Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/28TH KARTHIKA 1934 OP (CAT).No. 3782 of 2012 (Z) ----------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA.189/2012 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH ................. ## PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS IN THE O.A: ------------------------------------------- 1. P.E.JAFER, AGED 47 YEARS S/O. LATE. M.ABDULLAKOYA POLICE CONSTABLE (PC - 358) KALPENI POLICE STATION KALPENI ISLAND RESIDING AT PUTHIYA EDIYAKKAL HOUSE, AMINI ISLAND UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP. 2. A.P. FATHAHULLA, S/O. LATE M.K.KASMI POLICE CONSTABLE (PC - 359) ATTINGAL POLICE STATION RESIDING AT NASR MANZIL AGATTI ISLAND UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP. 3. M.ABDUL HAKEEM, S/O.LATE K.I. AHMED KUNHI POLICE CONSTABLE (PC - 361) KALPENI POLICE STATION KALPENI ISLAND, RESIDING AT MARAL HOUSE KALPENI ISLAND ,UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP. 4. M.BASHEER, S/O. LATE K.N. ABDULLA KOYA POLICE CONSTABLE (PC-371) KAVARATTI POLICE STATION RESIDING AT MANNIYAM HOUSE, AMINI ISLAND UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN ## RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN THE O.A: ------------------------------------------------ 1. THE ADMINISTRATOR UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP KAVARATTI -682555. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, - UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATTI -682555. OP (CAT).No. 3782 of 2012 (Z) 3. A.SAYED KOYA, HEAD CONSTABLE (NO 316) MINICOY POLICE STATION MINOCOY ISLAND UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP. 682559. 4. AJITHKUMAR V. HEAD CONSTABLE (NO.314) SPECIAL BRANCH UNIT LAKSHADEEP POLICE) BEYPORE CALICUT 15. 5. A.P.KASMI. POLICE CONSTABLE (NO.326) SPECIAL BRANCH UNIT (LAKSHADWEEP POLICE), BEEPER CALICUT -15. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,SC,LAKSHADWEEP ADMN. THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX OP (CAT).No. 3782 of 2012 (Z) ## PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS : EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER F.NO.1/13/84-ESTT (POL) PART II VOL. I/1112 DT 14.03.2011 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER F.NO.1/13/84-ESTT (POL) PART-II VOL-1 DT.16/05/2011. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF ORIGINAL APPLICATION IN O.A. NO.189/2011 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH. i.ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE SELECT LIST DATED 15.05.2011. ii.ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS F.NO.1/13/84-ESTT (POL) PART II COL-DATED 3.8.2011. iii.ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 1/12/2011. iV. ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.A.NO.445/2011 DATED 21.10.2011. EXT.P4TRUE COPY OF THE M.A.NO.854/2012 IN O.A.NO. 189/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE CAT. I ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS TKS KVTI DE BNGT NR 419 GR 500 DATED 14.5.2012. ii ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.2057/STS/TRG/RESULT. 2012 DATED 30/6/2012. EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 IN O.A. NO. 189/2012. i ANNEXURE R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT RR. EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE PETITIONERS IN O.A.NO.189/2012 AGAINST THE REPLY STATEMENT OF RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 i ANNEDURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION F.NO 4/46/74/POL DT 13/10/77. ii ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DT 12.6.1978. iii.ANNEXURE A9 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION F.NO.1/12/78-ESTT (POL) DT. 20.7.1979. iv ANNEDURE A10 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICASTION F.NO.4/1/82-POL DT 19/12/ 1984. OP (CAT).No. 3782 of 2012 (Z) v ANNEDURE A11 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICASTION F.NO.1/3/2011-ESTT POL DT 16/4/2011. vi ANNEDURE A11 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICASTION F.NO.1/4/2011-ESTT POL DT 19/4/2011. EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5 EXT.P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 19/09/2012 IN O.A.NO. 189/2012 OF THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL. /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE ## **Manjula Chellur, C.J. & A.M. Shaffique, J.** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P.(CAT) No. 3782 OF 2012 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 19[th] day of November, 2012 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Manjula Chellur, C.J.** Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. We have gone through the order of Tribunal and also the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners reported in 1994 KHC 987 in the case of **Gujarat State Dy.Executive** ## **' Engineers Association v. State of Gujarat and others** . 2. It is not in dispute that by virtue of the earlier order of Tribunal the petitioners got included in the rank list at Ext.P2 a list prepared for promotion to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector(Wireless Operator) and Assistant Sub Inspector (Radio Technician). According to the petitioners, though there was a notification for filling up of 16 posts, based on meritcum-seniority list, 5 vacancies arose during the selection year on account of retirement of certain officers in the post of Assistant Sub Inspectors. Therefore, the petitioners who were included in the rank list as Sl.Nos.17 to 20 respectively at Ext.P2 were also entitled for selection during the said year as OP(CAT) No. 3782 of 2012 -:2:- the vacancies arose in the very same year in which notification was made. They also challenge the decision of the respondent authority in conducting another examination for the 5 vacancies that fall vacant on account of retirement of Assistant Sub Inspectors. 3. The stand of the respondents before Tribunal was, as per the notification only 16 vacancies were notified and the procedure adopted by the respondent authority was to keep the list alive till all the notified vacancies are filled up, unless the notification itself prescribes a period keeping the list alive. There is no obligation on the part of the respondent authority to keep the list alive till all the vacancies are filled up irrespective of notification. To substantiate their stand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent authority also submits, when the earlier examination was conducted, objections came to be filed seeking permission to conduct the examination again as they were not able attend the examination for want of transportation from their respective islands to the place of examination. However, no permission was granted giving such OP(CAT) No. 3782 of 2012 -:3:- concession in the earlier litigation. According to the Standing Counsel, in order to see that everyone gets an opportunity, another examination is notified which is not in contradiction to any of the procedure or rule of selection process. Therefore, there is no justification in the argument of the petitioners that till entire rank list is exhausted, the list has to be kept alive or that whatever vacancy arises in the selection year, has to be filled up from the rank list already in existence. 4. It is not in dispute that 16 vacancies were notified for the rank list at Ext.P2 and it was the subject matter of earlier round of litigation before this Court. Apparently, Ext.P1 is not the notification notifying the vacancies and calling for applications to appear for the examination. Ext.P1 is a wireless message sent to all police stations concerned. In that view of the matter, in the absence of any rule or procedure like Circular issued by the respondent authority indicating that the rank list will be alive and whatever vacancies arise in the said selection year have to be OP(CAT) No. 3782 of 2012 -:4:- taken from the said rank list, we are at loss to understand the stand of the petitioners. 5. Though petitioners' counsel rely upon the above said decision of Gujarat State Dy.Executive Engineers' Associations' case by placing reliance on paragraph 8 of the judgment, after going through paragraphs 9 and 10 of the judgment it is very clear that there was a Circular issued in the said case which indicated how long the rank list will be alive and how the vacancies have to be filled up. In the absence of such material available in the present case, we do not see any ground to reject the stand of the respondent authority. 6. In that view of the matter, when another examination is notified for filling up of vacancies arose subsequent to notification that lead to Ext.P2 rank list, whoever has merit will alone be selected and there is no impediment for the petitioners also to participate in the said examination and get through by way of merit. We also take note OP(CAT) No. 3782 of 2012 -:5:- of the fact that the entire promotion process is on merit-cumseniority basis. In that view of the matter, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the Original Petition is dismissed. **Manjula Chellur, Chief Justice.** **A.M. Shaffique, Judge.** ttb/19/11