IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL &

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.

MONDAY, THE 10^TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 20TH JYAISHTA, 1946 WA NO. 78 OF 2024 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 09.10.2023 IN WP(C) NO.8378 OF

2020 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER:

SANJAIKUMAR V. K.

AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. K. VISWAPPAN NAIR, LEGAL ASSISTANT GRADE II, LAW DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001, RESIDING AT 'SWAPNA', T. C. 18/1909, SREEHILLS, THIRUMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 006., PIN – 695006 BY ADVS.

SMITHA S.PILLAI N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.)

P.K.MANOJKUMAR ALICE THOMAS M.C.SINY RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001., PIN – 695001

2 HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR (SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY), KOCHI - 682 031., PIN – 682031 BY ADV B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL SR GP SRI T K VIPINDAS THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Amit Rawal, J.

For the reasons stated in the affidavit accompanying C.M.Appln.No.1 of 2024, filing delay of 60 days is condoned.

1. It is a classic case of roller-coaster/shuttle cock adopted by the writ petitioner-appellant who, according to his whims and fancies, had been knocking the doors of the Government seeking placement of his choice. This person should deserve imposition of cost to be paid in charity owing to wasting the court time, but since is facing family problems, law of nature has already taken its toll, so we refrain from imposing cost.

2. As per the facts emanated from the pleadings, was advised by the Kerala Public Service Commission to the post of Legal Assistant Grade-II in the Department of Law on 26.08.2010, and vide letter dated 09.09.2010 was issued appointment. He joined, after granting extension, on 08.11.2010. In the meantime, had also sat in the examination for the post of Munsiff-Magistrate and after having undergone the regular process of selection, was appointed as Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 23.01.2012 and took charge on 30.01.2012. His probation in the post of Munsiff-Magistrate was not declared but in the meantime, submitted a representation dated 04.08.2017 asking for repatriation to the Law Department ie., the 1^st respondent. The said request was accepted and vide Ext.P2, was re-appointed vide letter dated 19.12.2017 as junior most Legal Assistant Grade-II.

3. Things did not stop here. For the reason best known, again submitted a representation dated 15.07.2019 to this Court asking for re-appointment as Munsiff-Magistrate, which was rejected vide communication dated 11.11.2019 and 16.10.2019 Exts.P4 and P5 respectively. By relying upon Rule 8 of Part II of Kerala State Subordinate Service Rules, 1958, sought the indulgence of the Single Bench by claiming the following reliefs:

(i) To call for the records leading to Exhibits P4 and P5 and quash the same by the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari.

(ii) To issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to repost the petitioner as Munsiff – Magistrate in the Kerala Judicial Service.

(iii) To issue such other writs, orders or directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

4. Respondents contested the aforementioned claims on the point that Rule 8 could be invoked only once and that too, in the parent department which is the law department and not the High Court. This Court accepted the request of the appellant for re-appointment to his former post as Legal Assistant and in his place one another person had been transferred and posted. Writ petition on the basis of the aforementioned pleading was dismissed.

5. Sri.N.Nandakumara Menon, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, assisted by Adv.Smitha.S.Pillai in support of the contention relied upon Rule 13B of Part II of Kerala State and Subordinate Service