IMPORTANT POINTS
The A.C, considered the representation in the year 2017, after more than six years from his appointment and five years from his representation; during which period the appellants continued in their posts as established seniors of Jayachandran and also was promoted to the higher category of Selection Grade District Judges’ and asserted their seniority in that category too, which, as has been noticed herein above, has not been challenged at any time.

JUDGMENT :

VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

1. The essential comity ideally required within a common service, identified as a designated cadre comprised of both "direct recruits" and "by-transfer appointees/promotees"; is often disturbed by inter se disputes of seniority, which the Courts have been resolving. Here, we find one of such disputes in the Higher Judicial Service of the State. There is no dearth of precedents, of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Courts; which however has to be applied on the basis of the specific service rules. In the present case, there are two aspects to be decided, which essentially arise from the claim of the direct recruits that they should be assigned to the specific number of vacancies set apart for that category de hors any promotions made from by-transfer appointees, in excess of the category assigned for such promotions or by-transfer appointments, as is the description in the Special Rules.

2. The direct-recruits place heavy reliance on the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Haneefa P.K. & Others v. State of Kerala & Others, reported in 2012 (4) KHC 510, which resolved an identical dispute, between the by-transfer appointees and direct recruits, who were last recruited before the present direct recruits. They claim seniority over the persons appointed by-transfer after the notification for their recruitment was issued; which by-transfer appointments were also 'subject to the claim of the direct recruits'. This is the first aspect. The second aspect to be decided arise as to the consequence of one of the direct recruits having been appointed later, by virtue of a decision of a Division Bench of this Court, which interfered with the select list as drawn up by the High Court. Three persons originally selected were sent out of service and the successful writ petitioner was accommodated along with three others, who were allowed to be continued. He claims seniority at par with the three appointed earlier and also as per the re-drawn select list, which places him above one of the three. We refer to the parties by their names.

3. The three, who were originally recruited; Sri.K.Babu, Sri.Kauser Edappagath and Sri.A.Badharudeen, appointed on 21.05.2009; were given seniority in accordance with their date of appointment. When a draft seniority list was published, the three direct recruits filed objections, pointing out that they were entitled to seniority over some, who have been appointed by-transfer, for reason of the by-transfer appointments being in excess of the quota allotted for such category of promotions. Their claims were allowed by the Administrative Committee (herein after A.C), which was challenged by two of the officers who are prejudicially affected by such assignment of seniority above them; Sri.John K. Illikkadan and Smt.K.P.Indira. The new direct recruit, Sri.C.Jayachandran who was recruited later, by virtue of a decision of this Court directing recasting of the select list, claims seniority along with the three others who were recruited and appointed earlier to him. Jayachandran seeks seniority on the basis of the select list re-cast by the High Court. Amongst the three recruited and appointed earlier, Badharudeen lost his place in the select list by reason of Jayachandran being assigned a position above him for reason of merit. On Jayachandran claiming seniority along with the other three it prejudices the claims of Sri. Mohammed Vaseem & Smt. Sophy Thomas who were appointed, by-transfer before Jayachandran joined service. The claims raised by the direct recruits were considered by the A.C on separate representations filed by them for reassignment of seniority.

4. We first heard the issue raised by all the direct recruits for seniority above the persons appointed prior to them on the ground of their right to be adjusted in the posts existing within the cadre available to direct recruits. This is on the ground that the by-transfer appointments were made in excess of the quota available t