Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 334
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON, J
Nishand Zachariah S/o. V.C.Zachariah - Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala - Respondent
WP(C) NO.13581 OF 2019
Decided On : 22-01-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : KALEESWARAM RAJ, SRI.VARUN C.VIJAY, KUM.A.ARUNA, SMT.RIYA RAYMOL IYPE
For the Respondent: SRI.SAJI VARGHESE [R4 & R5], SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY, SMT.N.SANTHA, SMT.MARIAM MATHAI, SRI.V.VARGHESE [R6 TO R10], SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO, SRI.S.A.ANAND, SMT.K.N.REMYA, SMT.L.ANNAPOORNA, SHRI.VISHNU V.K., KUM.ABHIRAMI K. UDAY
Seniority in government service is determined by qualifications at the time of appointment, and individuals lacking necessary qualifications cannot claim seniority.
Headnote:
(A) Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes, 1997 - Statute 67 - Writ petition challenging seniority list - Petitioner appointed as Library Assistant but lacked required qualifications at the time of appointment - Court upholds seniority list placing promoted respondents above petitioner due to lack of qualifications - Statute 67(1) stipulates that seniority is determined by qualifications at the time of first appointment. (Paras 5, 6)
(B) Seniority - Determination of seniority in government services requires that the individual must be duly qualified at the time of appointment to claim seniority. (Paras 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was appointed on 02.07.2012 but was not qualified as per the Statutes, while respondents 6 to 10 were promoted in 2013 and cleared the requisite tests.
Findings of Court:
The petitioner did not possess the necessary qualifications at the time of his appointment, thus cannot claim seniority over those who were promoted later.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to seniority based on his date of appointment despite lacking the required qualifications.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the lack of qualifications at the time of appointment disqualified the petitioner from claiming seniority, adhering to the Statutes governing appointments.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Petitioner, who joined the service of the 4th respondent college under the Mahatma Gandhi University, is before this Court challenging Ext.P9 seniority list dated 01.11.2017. The petitioner was appointed as Library Assistant pursuant to Exts.P1 and P2, dated 24.03.2012 and 02.01.2012 respectively, as seen from Ext.P3 appointment order dated 02.07.2012. The fact that the petitioner is so appointed to a substantive vacancy, is not in dispute. The qualification required for appointment by way of direct recruitment under the Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes, 1997 , was that the petitioner should possess S.S.L.C. or equivalent with a pass in the Attender test conducted by the Kerala Public Service Commission. In the case at hand, admittedly, at the time of appointment as above, the petitioner had not cleared the test to be conducted by the Kerala Public Service Commission. On account of that reason, a scale of pay was also not extended to the petitioner, and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner was before this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.9167 of 2013. This Court, by Ext.P6 judgment dated 27.05.2014, noticed that the Statutes prescribes for an impossibility insofar as the petitioner can clear the Departmental test only after entering into the service. In such circumstances, also taking into account certain treatment extended to others through various other judgments, this Court directed the petitioner herein to be extended the scale of pay of Last Grade Servants, permitting him to clear the Departmental test in three chances. Pursuant to the directions in Ext.P6 judgment, the petitioner’s appointment stood approved, as seen from Ext.P7 dated 30.09.2014. Later, on 19.09.2017, the petitioner, along with respondents 6 to 10, who were, in the meantime, promoted to the post of Library Assistants, in 2013, cleared the Departmental test conducted by the Kerala Public Service Commission. On the basis of the afore, the petitioner as well as respondents 6 to 10 were regularised. Later, Ext.P9 seniority list was arrived at, wherein the petitioner was placed behind respondents 6 to 10. Though the petitioner submitted Ext.P10 dated 27.11.2018 to the 4th respondent voicing his grievances, by Ext.P11 dated 29.03.2019, the 5th respondent rejected the request filed at Ext.P10. It is in such circumstances that the petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition.
2. I have heard Sri. Tharun Philip, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.E.G.Gorden, learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3, Sri. T. G. Saji Varghese, learned counsel for respondents 4 & 5 and Sri. V. Varghese, learned counsel for respondents 6 to 10.
3. The only challenge in this writ petition is as regards the seniority list at Ext.P9 as well as the ultimate findings contained in Ext.P11 issued by the 5th respondent herein.
4. The facts are not in dispute. The petitioner was appointed in the 4th respondent College on 02.07.2012 whereas respondents 6 to 10 were appointed to the post of Library Assistants in the year 2013, however, by way of promotion. The petitioner as well as respondents 6 to 10 have cleared the Departmental test conducted by the Kerala Public Service Commission on 19.09.2017 and all of them are extended the scale of pay on a regular basis with reference to the said date.
5. The petitioner, in such circumstances, contend that he should be extended seniority above respondents 6 to 10, with reference to his date of appointment. The petitioner relies on the provisions of Statute 67 of Part C, Chapter 45 of the Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes, 1997 , in support of the afore contention, which reads as under:
“67. Determination of seniority:
(1) Seniority of an officer in a grade in a unit shall be decided with reference to the date of first appointment in that grade in the unit, provided he is duly qualified for the post.”
At first blush, the contention raised by the petitioner appears to be attractive. However, on a reading of Statute 67(1) in its
