Kerala High Court
Ratnakaran P.C vs State Of Kerala on 18 July, 2025
2025:KER:53583
W.P.(C).No.26862 of 2010
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU
FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 27TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 26862 OF 2010
PETITIONER:
RATHNAKARAN P.C.
JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT/ASSISTANT ACCOUNTS OFFICER,
KERALA STATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOR
SCHEDULED CASTES/SCHEDULED TRIBES LTD,
(KERALA GOVERNMENT UNDERTAKING)
REGIONAL OFFICE, KASARAGOD.
BY ADV SHRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF SC/ST DEVELOPMENT,
SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
KERALA STATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOR
SCHEDULED CASTES/SCHEDULED TRIBES LTD,
TOWN HALL ROAD, THRISSUR.
3 ANTONY THOMAS
ASSISTANT GR.I,
REGIONAL OFFICE,
KOTTAYAM-686 001.
2025:KER:53583
W.P.(C).No.26862 of 2010
2
* ADDL.R4 M.C.CHANDRADASAN
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASST. GRADE -1, KERALA
STATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOR SC & ST LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE, MALAPPURAM, RESIDING AT
CHANDRODAYAM, KULAKKAD.P.O., CHERPULASSERRY,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
*(ADDL.R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER
DTD.21.12.2010 IN I.A.No.17512/2010.)
**ADDL.R5 V.ANILKUMAR
AGED 44 YEARS
S/O.VELLAPPAN PILLAI, ACCOUNTS OFFICER (DISTRICT
MANAGER-IN-CHARGE), KERALA STATE DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION FOR SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULED
TRIBE LIMITED, PRESENTLY WORKING AT
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, RESIDING AT KRISHNA
BHAVANAM, CHERUSSERY BHAGOM, CHAVARA, KOLLAM
DISTRICT -691 583.
**(ADDL.R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER
DTD.22.1.2014 IN I.A.No.748/2014)
BY ADVS.
SHRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS
SMT.REKHA VASUDEVAN
SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM)
SHRI.I.V.PRAMOD, SC, KERALA STATE DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION FOR SC/ST LIMITED
OTHER PRESENT:
ADV ROBIN RAJ, SPL GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 18.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:53583
W.P.(C).No.26862 of 2010
3
S.MANU, J.
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.26862 of 2010
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
Petitioner entered service of the Kerala State Development Corporation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Limited on 17.04.1997 as Assistant/Accountant Grade II. He was promoted as Assistant Grade I on 24.04.2000. Later, he was promoted as Junior Superintendent on 20.06.2003. Petitioner submitted a representation on 03.12.2006 claiming that his seniority was not properly fixed. Ext.P6 notice was issued to him on 24.04.2007 intimating that a draft revised seniority list had been prepared and in the said list his rank was 35; whereas in the seniority list published on 12.09.2003 his rank was 22. He submitted objection to the said notice and filed a representation to the Government also.
2025:KER:53583 W.P.(C).No.26862 of 2010 4
2. Petitioner approached this Court in W.P. (C)No.14506/2007 aggrieved by the revision of seniority. During the pendency of the writ petition another seniority list was drawn in the cadre of Assistant/Accountant Grade I. Petitioner was placed at 35th rank in the said seniority list. On 29.8.2009, 2nd respondent issued an order reverting the petitioner to the post of Assistant/Accountant Grade I with another employee. W.P.(C)No.25673/2009 was filed thereafter and interim order was passed staying reversion. By the time the said writ petition was taken up for final hearing, another seniority list was published on 25.06.2010, in which the petitioner was at 36 th rank. W.P.(C)No.25673/2009 was disposed of on 29.07.2010 along with some connected cases. This Court dismissed the writ petitions leaving it open to the petitioners to pursue their remedies against the seniority list published on 25.06.2010. Thereafter the instant writ petition was filed.
2025:KER:53583 W.P.(C).No.26862 of 2010 5
3. Additional respondents 4 and 5 were later impleaded.
4. I have heard Mr.Kaleeswaram Raj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mrs.Rekha Vasudevan, learned counsel for the additional 5th respondent and Mr.Harish Gopinath, learned counsel appearing for the additional 4th respondent. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation was also heard.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that from Ext.P18 series it can be seen that the petitioner passed the Book Keeping test earlier than all other employees of the same cadre. It was taking note of acquisition of test qualification he was placed above the respondents 3 to 5 in the seniority list prepared in 2003. Reversion of the petitioner after placing him down in the seniority list was improper and illegal. The said action of the Corporation was highly arbitrary. Petitioner was promoted to the post of Junior Superintendent/Assistant Accounts Officer on 20.06.2003 and he continued in the post for 2025:KER:53583 W.P.(C).No.26862 of 2010 6 several years before reversion. Learned counsel contended that the petitioner was not liable to be reverted in view of the theory of sit-back also. In this regard the learned counsel placed reliance over the judgments reported in Sajeev.N.J. v. Union of India and others [2009 SCC OnLine Ker 6581] and Rabindra Nath Bose & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors [AIR 1970 SC 470].
6. Smt. Rekha Vasudevan contended that the petitioner was placed higher in the seniority list in 2003 by the Corporation, accepting his claim that he had acquired the test qualification earlier than other employees working in the same post. She submitted that the said claim was not legally sustainable in view of Rule 13A(1)(b) of the KS&SSR The learned counsel submitted that by virtue of the said provision exemption from acquiring the newly introduced qualification for a period of two years was available to all employees and hence no specific advantage was liable to be granted to the petitioner 2025:KER:53583 W.P.(C).No.26862 of 2010 7 for the reason that he acquired test qualification early. The learned counsel submitted that the said mistake was later realised by the Corporation and as stated in Ext.P6 notice the Corporation assigned the task of rectifying the mistakes in the seniority list to a sub committee. Sub committee found that the provisions of Rule 13A(1)(b) was not followed when the seniority list was published on 12.09.2003. Thereafter it was decided to issue notices to those employees whose position in the seniority list was likely to be affected. Objections were considered by the Corporation and the seniority was thereafter re-fixed. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner obtained an undue advantage and got promoted as Junior Superintendent in 2003. She contended that theory of sit-back has no application in the facts of the instant case as the higher seniority granted to the petitioner was disputed by others and several litigations also followed. She pointed out that the additional 5th respondent had submitted objections and appeals 2025:KER:53583 W.P.(C).No.26862 of 2010 8 also against lowering of his seniority. O.P.No.15229/2001 was filed before this Court aggrieved by the final seniority list in the post of Assistant/Accountant Grade I published on 17.03.2001. Hence, the theory of sit-back has no application and the reversion was perfectly justified. Smt.Rekha Vasudevan relied on the judgment of this Court in Antony v. State of Kerala [1989 (1) KLT 374] and pointed out the following observations of the Division Bench:-
"3. ......................................... What R.13AA contemplates is granting the right to the candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe for being considered for promotion, even though they have not actually passed the prescribed test for earning eligibility for promotion within the specified time. R.13A, no doubt, speaks of promotion being on a temporary basis. It further provides that in the event of the candidates that are promoted on the basis of R.13AA not passing the prescribed test within the time specified, they are liable to be reverted to the original post. That is the only consequence that 2025:KER:53583 W.P.(C).No.26862 of 2010 9 flows in the event of such candidates not passing the prescribed test within the specified time. The expression 'temporarily' used in R.13A (1) (a) is only to convey that such candidates are likely to loss title to the post in the event of their not passing the prescribed test. Appointment made under R.13A cannot be regarded as temporary appointment as contemplated by R.31 of the rules. As on the date on which the scheduled caste candidates got promotion on the basis of the exemption under R.13AA, it cannot be said that they are not qualified for promotion having regard to the fact that they had the benefit of exemption granted under R.13AA. It is no doubt true that the right to earn promotion is by virtue of R.13AA which is capable of being defeated by the failure to pass the prescribed test on the part of the candidates within the specified time. If the candidate did pass the prescribed test within the specified time, their title to hold the post does not get defeated. Such of the candidates who passed the tests within the specified time would therefore be entitled to get the date on which on the strength of R.13AA they got promoted as the relevant date for the purpose of determination of 2025:KER:53583 W.P.(C).No.26862 of 2010 10 their relative seniority, in the promoted cadre. ..................."
7. The learned counsel submitted that the observations of the Division Bench in the above case would apply to the facts of the case at hand also. Sri.Harish Gopinath and the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation also argued in the same lines.
8. Petitioner's contentions are mainly two fold. He has a case that he acquired test qualification earlier than others who were working in the same post. He therefore claimed seniority which was acceded to by the Corporation initially. In view of the provisions of Rule 13A(1)(b) of KS&SSR such an advantage was not liable to be claimed and obtained by the petitioner. The Corporation actually went wrong in re-fixing the seniority on the basis of acquisition of test qualification. When the Corporation realised the mistake notices were issued to the employees who are likely to be adversely affected, their objections were considered and final seniority list was published. Corporation 2025:KER:53583 W.P.(C).No.26862 of 2010 11 thus rectified the anomalies in the seniority list. I find considerable merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondents in this regard. The observations of a Division Bench of this Court in the decision cited by Smt.Rekha Vasudevan are relevant and same analogy can be applied in the instant case also. Therefore, the petitioner was not liable to be placed at a higher position in the seniority list for the reason that he acquired test qualification, ignoring the actual seniority counting from the date of joining of the respective officers working in the post.
9. Next contention of the petitioner is on the basis of theory of sit-back. In the facts of the case at hand, the seniority list in which the petitioner was placed in an advantageous position was objected to by several employees. Objections were raised immediately. Several employees approached this Court on various occasions seeking re-fixation of seniority. Therefore, in the instant case the petitioner cannot 2025:KER:53583 W.P.(C).No.26862 of 2010 12 contend that the higher position in the seniority list obtained by him remained unchallenged. Reading of Ext.P6 notice is sufficient to satisfy that the seniority list was challenged by many employees and the Corporation revised it in view of the objections. Under such circumstances, the theory of sit-back also cannot come to the aid of the petitioner.
In the result, I find no merit in the contentions of the petitioner. Writ Petition is therefore dismissed.
Sd/-
S.MANU JUDGE skj 2025:KER:53583 W.P.(C).No.26862 of 2010 13 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.28.2.2000 FILED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P2 COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.20.6.2003.
EXT.P3 COPY OF ORDER DTD.28.9.2005.
EXT.P4 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.15.9.2004
FILED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P5 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.3.12.2006
FILED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P6 COPY OF NOTICE DTD.24.4.2007.
EXT.P7 COPY OF OBJECTION FILED BY PETITIONER.
EXT.P8 COPY OF REPRESENTATION DTD.28.4.2007 FILED
BY THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P9 COPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST PUBLISHED ALONG
WITH ORDER DTD.17.3.2001.
EXT.P10 COPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST PUBLISHED ALONG WITH ORDER DTD.20.6.2003.
EXT.P11 COPY OF REVISED FINAL SENIORITY LIST. EXT.P12 COPY OF ORDER DTD.10.10.2008 TOGETHER WITH SENIORITY LIST.
2025:KER:53583 W.P.(C).No.26862 of 2010 14 EXT.P13 COPY OF ORDER DTD.29.8.2009.
EXT.P14 COPY OF ORDER DTD.10.9.2009 IN W.P. (C)No.25673/2003.
Ext.P15 COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.17.12.2009. EXT.P16 COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.25.6.2010 TOGETHER WITH SENIORITY LIST.
EXT.P17 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD.29.7.2010 IN WP(C)No.25673/2009.