JUDGMENT

Viju Abraham, J.

Respondents 1 to 3 in O.A. (Ekm) No.1237 of 2015 before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench have filed the present Original Petition challenging Ext.P3 final order of the Tribunal dated 01.02.2021.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the present O.P are as follows: The applicant entered service as L.D Clerk in the Education Department on 08.08.1988. Later the applicant passed all the departmental tests for promotion to the post of U.D Clerk. While so, the applicant availed leave without allowance for the period from 07.03.2000 to 28.01.2004. The 3rd respondent in the O.A issued an order dated 31.05.2006 promoting qualified L.D Clerk in the vacancy of U.D Clerk available up to 29.12.2004. The applicant was Serial No.35 with the assigned date of promotion as 10.03.2003. The said order dated 31.05.2006 was revised by the 3rd respondent as per Annexure-A1 proceedings dated 15.09.2006 by which all qualified L.D Clerks, who entered in service on or before 31.12.1992 and who were included in the seniority list of L.D Clerks for the period 1989-1992 or before, were ordered to be promoted as U.D Clerk. Thereupon, the applicant was ranked No.37 in the list, with the assigned date of promotion as 21.01.2003. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent issued Annexure-A2 provisional seniority list of U.D Clerk dated 21.07.2008 for the period from 01.01.1996 to 31.12.2005 and in the said provisional seniority list the applicant was ranked 512 with the assigned date as 28.09.2002. The 2nd respondent granted 3 months time to file objection if any, to Annexure-A2 provisional list. To the knowledge of the applicant, no one objected against the rank assigned to the applicant within the time stipulated in Annexure-A2. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent in the O.A issued Annexure-A3 final seniority list on 03.08.2009 in which the applicant was ranked No.507 with the assigned date as 19.10.2001. As the applicant was promoted pursuant to Annexure-A1 proceedings as early as in 2006, his seniority was settled as per Annexures-A2 and A3. While so, the applicant received Annexure-A4 notice dated 05.07.2012 issued by the 2nd respondent in the O.A intimating that a personal hearing will be conducted on the complaint filed by one Balachandran regarding the seniority assigned to the applicant. The appellant obtained Annexure-A5, a copy of the alleged complaint filed by one Balachandran, UD Clerk, Thodannur as per the provisions of the Right to Information Act. It is contended that the said complainant Sri. Balachandran is a fictitious person and no such person by the name Balachandran is included in Annexure-A2 or A3 seniority list. Thereupon, the applicant submitted a reply dated 20.07.2012 before the 2nd respondent. It was further contended on the strength of Annexure-A6 reply received from the Asst. Education Officer, Thodannur that no such employee by the name Balachandran was working as a U.D Clerk in the said office during February 2012. The attendance register from the AEO’s office during February and July 2012 obtained by the applicant also showed that no employee by the name Balachandran has signed the attendance register. The said complainant Sri. Balachandran did not appear for the hearing conducted on 20.07.2012. Based on the above materials it was contended that the complaint was lodged by a fictitious person. The 2nd and 3rd respondents in the O.A purported to be acting on Annexure-A5 complaint, issued Annexure-A7 order dated 20.12.2013 whereby promotions were ordered overlooking the claim of the applicant that too without revising the date assigned to the applicant in Annexure-A3 final seniority list and without issuing any orders after the hearing conducted pursuant to Annexure-A4 notice. It was contended that in Annexure -A7, Serial Nos. 36 to 40 are juniors to the applicant in the cadre of UDC and their rank numbers in Annexure-A7 are from 508 to 512. Aggrieved by Annexure-A7, the applicant preferre