IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST 2016/1ST BHADRA, 1938
OP(KAT).No. 56 of 2016 (Z)
---------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 1752/2012 of KERALA ADMINISTRATIVETRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 16.9.2014
PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENTS IN OA:
------------------------------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695001.
2. THE STATE POLICE CHIEF POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695010.
BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR
RESPONDENT(S)/APPLICANTS & RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5 IN OA:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1.|R.MANOJ|
|---|---|
||S/O. THE LATE K.N.RAMAKAIMAL, ARMED POLICE SUB INSPECTOR,|
||IMMIGRATION WING, CIAL, NEDUMBASSERY, ERNAKULAM,|
||PIN-683585, RESIDING AT PADMALAYAM, THODUPUZHA P.O.,|
||IDUKKI, KERALA-685584.|
|2.|BOSCO JOSEPH|
||S/O.JOSEPH PANAKKAL, ARMED POLICE SUB INSPECTOR,|
||KAP-I BATTALION, R.V.PURAM, THRISSUR, PIN-680505,|
||RESIDING AT PANAKKAL HOUSE, THAMARAYUR, KOTTAPPADI,|
||THRISSUR, KERALA-680505.|
|3.|K.MADHUSOODANA PANICKER|
||S/O. N.KAMALASANA PANICKER, ARMED POLICE SUB INSPECTOR,|
||INDIA RESERVE BATTALION, R.V.PURAM, THRISSUR, PIN-680505,|
||RESIDING AT PIDAVOORAZHIKATHU, MALOOR P.O., PATHANAPURAM,|
||KOLLAM, KERALA-689646.|
|4.|PRAVI E.V.|
||S/O. THE LATE K.V.KUNHANBU, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,|
||IMMIGRATION WING, CIAL NEDUMBASSERRY (WORKING AT|
||KARIPUR AIPORT ON WORKING ARRANGEMENT), PIN-673647,|
||RESIDING AT VARADHAPRIYA, CHOYADAM, KADIPUR P.O.,|
||THALASSERRY, KANNUR, KERALA-670642.|
OP(KAT).No. 56 of 2016 (Z)
-2-
5. P.K.MOHANAN NAIR ARMED POLICE SUB INSPECTOR, SPECIAL ARMED POLICE BATTALION, PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695005.
6. NIRMAL KUMAR ARMED POLICE SUB INSPECTOR, RAPID RESCUE AND RESPONSE FORCE (RRRF), PANDIKKAD, MALAPPURAM, KERALA-676521.
7. M.S.SREEKUMAR ARMED POLICE SUB INSPECTOR, KERALA ARMED POLICE V BATTALION, MANIYAR, VADASSERIKADA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689662, ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 13-03-2013 IN M.A. 619/13, KERALA.
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(KAT).No. 56 of 2016 (Z)
---------------------------
## **APPENDIX**
## PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS
- -------------------------------------
- P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE OA WITH ANNEXURES AND APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT.
- P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT WITH ANNEXURES.
- P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER.
- P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16-09-2014 IN OA 1752/12.
- P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A. 462/02 DATED 20-06-2005.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL
TRUE COPY
P.S.TO JUDGE
dsn
## **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JJ.**
**-------------------------------------------------O.P.(KAT)No.56 OF 2016**
**-------------------------------------------------DATED THIS THE 23[rd] DAY OF AUGUST, 2016**
## **JUDGMENT**
## **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J** .
The State and the State Police Chief are the petitioners before this Court. Challenge is against the verdict passed by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram in O.A.No.1752/2012 about two years ago, to be accurate on 16.9.2014.
2. The case of the petitioners, as projected by the learned Senior Government Pleader, is that, the O.A. was filed by the applicants challenging the correctness and sustainability of Annexures A9 and A14 orders. It was in relation to the fixation of seniority, which has been interfered by the Tribunal without proper consideration of the facts, figures and the relevant provisions of law. It is pointed out that the applicants got appointed in the 'sports quota', in supernumerary vacancies and by virtue of the very nature of their engagement, their seniority should have been reckoned only from the date of appointment against the regular vacancies. It was in the said circumstance, that the seniority
O.P.(KAT)No.56/16
-2-
wrongly fixed earlier was corrected by passing Annexure A9 order by the Government, followed by Annexure A14 proceedings issued by the State Police Chief. It is also pointed out that the above orders were given effect to and the seniority position has been refixed and revised accordingly. It was at that point of time, that the matter was sought to be intercepted by the Tribunal by filing the OA. Despite the specific pleadings raised by the petitioners herein, the Tribunal applied the 'sit back theory' and allowed the OA, setting aside Annexures A9 and A14, which hence is sought to be challenged in this Original Petition.
3. The learned Senior Government Pleader points out that the revision of seniority was necessitated, in view of the observations made by a Division Bench of this Court as per Ext.P5 verdict dated 20.6.2005 passed in W.A.No.462/2002 and connected cases. It is stated that an Expert Committee was appointed to consider the issue, as pointed out by the Bench of this Court and as per the recommendation made by the Expert Committee, the seniority had to be refixed and revised only with effect from the date of appointment against the regular vacancies
O.P.(KAT)No.56/16
-3-
and not from the date of original appointment. It was accordingly, that the seniority was revised and the same was given effect to. The learned Senor Government Pleader submits that, because of the intervention made by the Tribunal, far reaching consequences have been resulted and hence the challenge.
4. We have gone through the entire proceedings and in particular, the sequence of events as referred to by the Tribunal in Ext.P4 order passed in the OA. The first point to be considered is whether the petitioners are justified in moving this Court at this distance of time, raising a challenge against Ext.P4. Obviously, Ext.P4 verdict was passed by the Tribunal about two years ago as mentioned already, i.e., on 16.9.2014. The Original Petition has been filed only on 30.3.2016. It is true that no time stipulation is there with regard to filing of an Original Petition challenging the order. But it is settled law that the same has to be done within a 'reasonable time'. Even by the farthest stretch of imagination it is not possible for this Court to arrive at a finding that the Original Petition filed nearly 'two years' after
O.P.(KAT)No.56/16
-4-
passing the order by the Tribunal could be branded as within reasonable time. No where have the petitioners mentioned any reason in the Original Petition, for the delay in approaching this Court. Same is the position with regard to the contents of the affidavit filed in support thereof. What transpired after passing the verdict by the Tribunal on 16.9.2014, till the date of filing of the Original Petition, remains to be a matter of mystery and this Court is never told as to the sequence of events. This by itself is a sufficient ground to non-suit the petitioners declining interference, as the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court cannot be extended to persons who were simply sleeping over 'arm chair' as held by the Apex Court vide the decision reported in **Rabindra Nath Bose and others** v. **Union of India and others (AIR 1970 SC 470)** .
5. Another aspect to be noted is that Ext.P4 verdict passed by the Tribunal is a common order involving as many as '8' cases. Admittedly, the challenge has been made by the petitioners/Government only against the verdict passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.1752/2012. When the matter came up for
O.P.(KAT)No.56/16
-5-
consideration before this Court earlier, the learned Senior Government Pleader was required to ascertain whether any other connected matter is pending or whether they have challenged the verdict passed in the other O.As./T.A. After verifying the position, the learned Senior Government Pleader submits that no other matter is pending. In the said circumstances, the finding and reasoning given by the Tribunal in all the other cases remain intact and as such, no interference is possible in this case alone. The OP is liable to fail on this core as well.
6. With regard to the finding and reasoning given by the Tribunal, it is to be noted that the concerned applicants were appointed in the Police Department in the 'Sports Quota'. The necessity to have appointed them, recruiting young blood into the State Team was projected in the motion made by the 2[nd] petitioner herein, as to requirement to replenish the teams in Athletics, Football, Volleyball and Basket ball maintained by the State Police. It was pursuant to this, that Annexure A1 order was passed by the Government, invoking the power under Rule 39 of Part II KS&SSR, in relaxation of the relevant norms. The said
O.P.(KAT)No.56/16
-6-
Government order has been extracted by the Tribunal in Para.7 of Ext.P4 order. It is also noted that, when the seniority given to the applicants from the date of appointment was superceded earlier (with regard to the promotion to the next higher post), they had moved the appropriate authority pursuant to the direction given by this Court as per Annexure A20 judgment.
7. In the course of further proceedings, the appointing authority sought for clarification from the Government as to the seniority to be assigned to the applicants and it was accordingly responded by the Government, as per Annexure A21, making it clear that seniority of the persons concerned had to be fixed from the date of their appointment. The contents of Annexure A21 have also been extracted in paragraph 8 of the verdict passed by the Tribunal. In the course of further discussion, the scope of Article 69 (c) of the Kerala Financial Code has also been discussed and it was thereafter, that a finding was rendered with reference to the sequence of events, invocation of the power and procedure under Rule 39 of the KS&SSR, the contents of Annexure A1 and applying the 'sit back theory'. It is also to be
O.P.(KAT)No.56/16
-7-
noted that the declaration made by the Tribunal has not been challenged by the party respondents in the concerned OA, nor has it been challenged by any other aggrieved party so far, as no other connected case is stated as pending. Above all, what is the prejudice caused to the State/Department is not established.
In the above circumstance, we do not think it as a fit case to call for interference. We also find support from the ruling rendered by the Apex Court in **Bhoop Singh** v. **Union of India (AIR 1992 SC 1414)** to the effect that settled decision cannot be unsettled. Accordingly, interference is declined and the OP stands dismissed.
Sd/-
**P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE**
Sd/-
**ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE**
dsn
True copy
P.S.to Judge
