Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 20896
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ALEXANDER THOMAS, C. JAYACHANDRAN, JJ
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, – Appellant
Versus
SAJAN PETER, – Respondent
WA 674 2023
ADV GEORGIE JOHNY; ADV K.SUDHINKUMAR; SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL – SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER
Senior status from a lower position must be recognized for appointment under the 10% quota intended for low-paid employees, as per established service rules.
Headnote:
Quotas - Employment - Kerala High Court Act Section 5(i) - The court assessed the legality of seniority and appointment rules regarding lower division clerks, affirming the interpretative provisions that support inclusion of qualified lower category employees in reserved vacancies.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the rejection of his appointment as a Lower Division Clerk under the 10% quota for low-paid employees, as he contended that his seniority from a previous lower category position wasn’t properly recognized in the appointment process.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the petitioner’s entitlement to be appointed as LDC based on his seniority in a lower position, stating that the rules allowed for this recognition and the prior ruling was improperly interpreted by the respondents.
Issues: Whether the seniority from the lower category position should count towards the appointment in the 10% quota for Lower Division Clerks as stipulated in the relevant administrative rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that seniority in a lower post is valid for quota-based appointments under the rules, ensuring fair consideration for lower category employees.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the single judge's ruling requiring the appointment of the petitioner to the LDC post.
JUDGMENT
Alexander Thomas, J.
The instant intra court appeal has been instituted under Sec.5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act , to impugn the judgment dated 20.01.2023 rendered by the learned Single Judge, disposing of W.P(C)
No.36035/2022.
2. The appellants herein are respondents 2 to 4 in the W.P(C).
The 1st respondent in the W.A is the writ petitioner. Respondent No.2 in the writ appeal is R-1 in the W.P(C).
3. Heard Sri.Georgie Johny, learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Water Authority, appearing for the appellants, Sri.K.Sudhin Kumar, learned counsel appearing for R-1 herein/writ petitioner and Sri.B.Unnikrishna Kaimal, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for R-2 (State of Kerala).
4. The prayers in the instant W.P(C) No.36035/2022 are as follows :
“i) to issue a writ of certiorari or such other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P10 order No.27031/E10/2022/KWA dated
14.10.2022 issued by the 2nd respondent as it is arbitrary and illegal;
ii) to issue a Writ of Mandamus or order or direction to the 4th respondent to include the petitioner in Ext.P6 seniority list as Sl.No.3 instead of 78;
iii) to issue a writ of mandamus or order or direction to the 3rd respondent to appoint the petitioner as Lower Division Clerk under 10% quota at least with effect from the date on which his immediate junior was appointed and to give all consequential benefits there from;
iv) to declare that the petitioner is eligible to be appointed as Lower Division Clerk under 10% quota meant for low paid employees of Kerala Water Authority since as per Ext.P4 the Lineman is also a low paid employee belonging to the same category;
v) to issue such other appropriate Writ, Order or direction as is deemed just and necessary in the circumstances of the case.
vi) it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular documents.”
5. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, has rendered the impugned judgment, disposing the above W.P(C) and paras
8 to 10 thereof read as follows :
“8. It is clear that Ext.P7 amended Rules provide for 10% of vacancies of Lower Division Clerks to be reserved for qualified persons working in any of the lower categories included in the Kerala Water Authority (Administrative, Ministerial and Last Grade) Service Rules, 2021 or the Kerala Water Authority Public Health Engineering Service Rules. The requirement is that the personnel should be working in any of the lower categories, included under the said Rules. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a qualified person working in a lower category under the said Rule. The said Note also provides for counting of seniority in the lower post for by transfer appointment. This is the bone of contention between the parties and the contention of the respondents is that seniority is liable to be counted from the date of appointment in the specific post and not earlier. I notice that Ext.P9 judgment has considered this specific contention raised by the respondents. It was held that the petitioner's date of advice to the post of Lascar was 05.01.2004 and the respondents could not have effected any change in the said date of advice. Ext. P10 order now proceeds to state that the Rules provide for consideration of seniority only in the specified post.
9. Having considered the contentions advanced on either side and in view of the fact that the post of Lascar as well as of Lineman are posts having the same scale of pay and are both, admittedly, posts in the lower category from which by transfer appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk can be made in terms of the 2nd Note in category 27, I am of the opinion that the contention raised that the petitioner would be entitled to be included in the list prepared for by transfer appointment only from 14.12.2007, that is the date of appointment as Lineman cannot be accepted.
10. The petitioner's appointment in the lower post of Lascar being on
5.1.2004 and since severa
