Judges : V.SIVARAMAN NAIR
GOPALAKRISHNAN - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA - Respondent
Case No : O.P. No. 1717 of 1986
Decided On : 03/11/1986
Advocates Appeared :
A.M. Rajan Babu; For Petitioner Government Pleader; For Respondents
Promotion - Seniority Dispute - Service Rules
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought restoration of his seniority and promotion as Superintendent of Survey and Land Records, claiming that his juniors were promoted without the necessary qualifications and that he was entitled to a higher ranking.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had unreasonably delayed in seeking restoration of his seniority and promotion, and dismissed the petition on the grounds of inordinate delay.
Issues: Delay in seeking relief, entitlement to seniority and promotion
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of timely invocation of jurisdiction and the need for a reasonable explanation for delay in seeking relief. It held that the petitioner's inordinate delay was unjustified and refused to grant the relief sought.
Final Decision: The Original Petition was dismissed by the court.
1. Petitioner entered service as a Second Grade Surveyor on the advice of the Public Service Commission on 29-12-1961. He was promoted as First Grade Surveyor on 7-8-1965. That promotion was regularised with effect from 26-10-1965. He was further promoted as Head Surveyor on 2-11-1973. He is continuing in that post now. In Ext.P5 order dated 14-4-1970 ordering promotions, transfers and postings of Head Surveyors, juniors of the petitioner are said to have been promoted as Head Surveyors. Some more were so promoted in Ext.P6 order dated 20-5-1971. Admittedly, petitioner had not acquired necessary test qualifications for such promotion by that time. It is asserted that 20 of his juniors were promoted as Head Surveyors between 1969 and 3-10-1972. A list of Head Surveyors as on 1-1-1974 was published pursuant to a decision of this court in O.P.No. 2368 of 1973 along with Ext.P12 dated 3-11-1985. Petitioner submits that that list contains a lot of mistakes. There was some dispute relating to the period during which the officers had acquired test qualifications prescribed by the Rules. That controversy arose due to the judgment of this court in W.A.No. 43 and 45 of 1982. A provisional gradation list of Head Surveyors as on 1-11-1978 was published by the Director of Survey and Land Records on 30-9-1981 inviting objections. After considering all the objections, Ext.P2 list was published on 26-2-1982. In Ext.P2 (a) seniority list attached thereto, petitioner was given a lower rank than some of his juniors, who were promoted as Head Surveyors by Exts.P5 and P6 orders, and those listed in Ext.P7. In Ext. P3 dated 19-6-1982, the Government directed the Director of Survey and Land Records to review promotions, taking into account the interpretation that the period of exemption available to allotted officers had ended on 3-10-1972 and not 6-1-1976 Petitioner submits that he expected that if a comprehensive review was undertaken, he would get a higher ranking, because he had passed all the required test qualifications earlier than 3-10-1972. However, the review directed in Ext.P3 was confined only to persons holding the post of Superintendents of Survey and Land Records. Petitioner, therefore, submitted Ext.P8 representation dated 11-6-1984, requesting that "(i) the promotions made to the post of Head Surveyors during the periods from 1970 to 1972 may kindly be reviewed as directed in the reference cited and my name may be put in the proper place in the seniority list of Head Surveyors, and (ii) I may be promoted as Superintendent of Survey". Ext.P9 dated 12-10-1984 was sent thereafter, requesting that "necessary steps may kindly be taken to get my promotion as Head Surveyor reviewed on the grounds stated in the representation dated 11-6-1984". In answer to Ext.P9, the Director of Survey and Land Records ordered that promotions made to the category of Superintendent of Survey & Land Records for the period from 1970 onwards were reviewed strictly on the basis of the seniority list of Head Surveyors as on 1-4-1970 and 1-11-1978, and that the petitioner's promotion as Superintendent would be considered according to his seniority in the cadre of Head Surveyors when vacancy arose. Ext.P11 is a judgment whereby this court directed that promotions in the category of Superintendents, Survey and Land Records, should be reviewed. Petitioner submits that Exts.P8 and P9 were not properly considered. He, therefore, seeks the issue of a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to implement Ext.P3 order, review Ext.P2(a) list by effecting necessary modifications and restore to the petitioner his due rank above those mentioned in Ext.P7 list. He also seeks a declaration that he is senior to those included in Ext.P7 list. A writ of mandamus to so recognise his seniority is another relief sought by the petitioner. Yet another relief which he seeks is to direct respondents 1 and 2 to promote the petitioner as Superintendent of Survey and Land
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.