Gauhati High Court

Rashmi Rekha Majumdar vs Union Of India And 3 Ors on 23 March, 2021

Page No.# 1/17

GAHC010124062016

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : WP(C)/7777/2016

RASHMI REKHA MAJUMDAR
W/O SUSHANTA KUMAR MAJUMDAR, R/O OPPOSITE ASHRAM ROAD,
HOUSE NO. 22/A, SANTIPUR P.O. BHARALUMUKH GUWAHATI -9, DIST.
KAMRUP M, ASSAM.

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA and 3 ORS.
REP. BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY,
GOVT. OF INDIA, UDYOG BHAWAN, NEW DELHI- 110107.

2:THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

THE RUBBER BOARD
ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND
INDUSTRY
P.B. NO. 1122
SUB-JAIL ROAD
KOTTAYAM- 686002
STATE- KERALA

3:THE JOINT RUBBER PRODUCTION COMMISSIONER

RUBBER BOARD ZONAL OFFICE
HOUSE FED COMPLEX
CENTRAL BLOCK- II
FIRST FLOOR
BELTOLA
BASISTHA ROAD
DISPUR- 781006
GUWAHATI
ASSAM.
Page No.# 2/17

4:SMTI. T.P. SHEEJA
RUBBER BOARD
REGIONAL OFFICE SREEKANDAPURAM
KERALA- 670631. THE RESPONDENT NOS. 2
and 4 TO BE SERVED THROUGH THE JOINT RUBBER PRODUCTION
COMMISSIONER
RUBBER BOARD ZONAL OFFICE
HOUSEFED COMPLEX
CENTRAL BLOCK
II FIRST FLOOR
BELTOLA
BASISTHA ROAD
DISPUR - 781006
GUWAHATI
ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.M J BARUA

Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.

Linked Case : WP(C)/5815/2014

PRASANTA BARUAH and ANR.
S/O LT. PONARAM BARUAH
R/O H/NO.36
PUB SARUMATARIA
P.O. HENGRABRI
DISPUR
GHY-36
DIST- KAMRUP
ASSAM

2: PRADIP KUMAR GOSWAMI
S/O LT. MADAN CHANDRA GOSWAMI
NEAR NAVODAYA JATIYA VIDYALAYA
HENGRABARI
P.O. HENGRABARI
GHY-36
DIST- KAMRUP
ASSAM
VERSUS
Page No.# 3/17

THE UNION OF INDIA and 12 ORS
REP. BY THE SECY.
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE and INDUSTIES
GOVT. OF INDIA
UDYOG BHAWAN
NEW DELHI-11017

2:THE CHAIRMAN
THE RUBBER BOARD
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
P.B. NO.1122
SUB JAIL ROAD
KOTTAYAM-686002
KERALA
3:THE JT. RUBBER PRODUCTION COMMISSIONER
RUBBER BOARD ZONAL OFFICE
HOUSE FED COMPLEX
CENTRAL BLOCK-II FIRST FLOOR
BELTOLA
BASISTHA ROAD
DISPUR
GHY-6
ASSAM
4:THE DY. RUBBER PRODUCTION COMMISSIONER
RUBBER BOARD REGIONAL OFFICE
HOUSE FED COMPLEX
CENTRAL BLOCK-I ERD FLOOR
BELTOLA
BASISTHA ROAD
DISPUR
GHY-6
ASSAM
5:P.K. RAMCHANDRAN

6:K K KAMALAKSHI

7:MARUKUTTY BABY

8:C L JAYAMOL

9:V P PREMALATHA

10:SALIMOL EAPEN

11:AJAYKUMAR KANHAR

12:PARASURAM NAIK
Page No.# 4/17

13:D SURESH
THE RESPONDENT NO.5 TO 13 TO BE SERVED THROUGH THE JT. RUBBER
PRODUCTION COMMISSIONER
RUBBER BOARD ZONAL OFFICE
HOUSE FED COMPLEX
CENTRAL BLOCK-II FIRST FLOOR
BELTOLA
BASISTHA ROAD
DISPUR
GHY-6
ASSAM
------------
Advocate for : MR.H K DAS
Advocate for : MR.G PEGUR-1to4 appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA and 12
ORS

Linked Case : WP(C)/3717/2016

SMT. RASHMI REKHA MAJUMDAR
W/O SUSHANTA KUMAR MAJUMDAR
R/O OPP. ASHRAM ROAD
H/NO.22/A
SANTIPUR
P.O. BHARALUMUKH
GHY-9
DIST- KAMRUP METRO
ASSAM

VERSUS

THE UNION OF INDIA and 5 ORS
REP. BY THE SECY.
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
GOVT. OF INDIA
UDYOG BHAWAN
NEW DELHI-7

2:THE CHAIRMAN
THE RUBBER BOARD
ADMINISTRATION DEPTT.
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
P.B. NO.1122
SUB-JAIL ROAD
KOTTAYAM-686002
KERALA
Page No.# 5/17

3:THE JT. RUBBER PRODUCTION COMMISSIONER
RUBBER BOARD ZONAL OFFICE
HOUSEFED COMPLEX
CENTRAL BLOCK-II 1ST FLOOR
BELTOLA
BASISTHA ROAD
GHY-6
ASSAM
4:C.R. OMANA
RUBBER BOARD
REGIONAL OFFICE
KANJIRAPPALLY
KERALA-686513
5:VALSALA MATHUKKAL
RUBBER BOARD
REGIONAL OFFICE
MANNARKAD
KERELA- 678582
THE RESPONDENT NOS. 5 AND 6 TO BE SERVED THROUGH THE JT.
RUBBER PRODUCATION COMMISSIONER
RUBBER BOARD ZONAL OFFICE
HOUSEFED COMPLEX
CENTRAL BLOCK II
1ST FLOOR BELTOLA
DISPUR
GHY-6
ASSAM
------------
Advocate for : MS.U GOGOI
Advocate for : MR.S S DEYR-4
5 appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA and 5 ORS

Linked Case : WP(C)/6901/2014

SMT. RASHMI REKHA MAJUMDER
W/O- SUSHANTA KUMAR MAJUMDAR
R/O- OPPOSITE ASHRAM ROAD
HOUSE NO. 22/A
SANTIPUR
P.O.- BHARALUMUKH
GHY- 9
DIST.- KAMRUP
ASSAM.

VERSUS
Page No.# 6/17

UNION OF INDIA and 23 ORS

REP. BY THE SECY.
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE and INDUSTRY
GOVT. OF INDIA
UDYOG BHAWAN
NEW DELHI- 110107.

2:THE CHAIRMAN

THE RUBBER BOARD
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
P.B. NO. 1122
SUB-JAIL ROAD
KATTAYAM- 686002
STATE- KERALA.
3:THE JOINT RUBBER PRODUCTION COMMISSIONER

RUBBER BOARD ZONAL OFFICE
HOUSE FED COMPLEX
CENTRAL BLOCK II FIRST FLOOR
BELTOLA
BASISTHA ROAD
DISPUR - 6
GUWAHATI
ASSAM.
4:THE DEPUTY RUBBER PRODUCTION COMMISSIONER

RUBBER BOARD REGIONAL OFFICE
HOUSEFED COMPLEX
CENTRAL BLOCK NO. 1
3RD FLOOR
BELTOLA
BASISTHA ROAD
DISPUR
GHY.- 6
ASSAM.
5:S/S KK KAMALAKSHI

6:MARUKUTTY BABY

7:CL JAYAMOL

8:VP PREMALATHA
Page No.# 7/17

9:SALIMOL EAPEN

10:AJAYKUMAR KANHAR

11:PARASURAM NAIK

12:D. SURESH

13:AR DIVYAKARAN

14:CR OMANA

15:GUTAL BARGAYARI

16:VALSALA MATHUKAL

17:TP SHEEJA

18:TP SHEEJA

19:SHYNY K PONNAN

20:DWIJENDRA NATH BARO

21:SUDHAKAR BAPUKI TRIPUDE

22:M. GOPALAKRISHNAN

23:GAURANGA DAS

24:KM SHAJI.
THE RESPONDENT NO. 5 TO 24 TO BE SERVED THROUGH THE JOINT
RUBBER PRODUCTION COMMISSIONER
Page No.# 8/17

RUBBER BARD ZONAL OFFICE
HOUSE FED COMPLEX
CENTRAL BLOCK II FIRST FLOOR
BELTOLA
BASISTHA ROAD
DISPUR-6
GUWAHATI
ASSAM
------------
Advocate for : MR.M J BARUAH
Advocate for : MR.B D DASR-2 appearing for UNION OF INDIA and 23 ORS

BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA

ORDER

Date : 23-03-2021

Heard Mr. M.J. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. B.D. Das, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents authorities and Mr. A. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4 and 5 in WP(C) 3717/2016.

2) The petitioners herein have challenged the legality of the action taken on part of the respondent to promote the private respondents in this four writ petitions. The petitioners in this four writ petitions claimed to be senior to the private respondents.

3) The case projected in this writ petition is that the petitioners were appointed as field officer at various point of time and they have become eligible for promotion to the next higher grade of Assistant Development Officer (ADO in short). The private respondents and others who were junior to the petitioners were promoted and en-bloc placed above the petitioners. Accordingly, it is projected that the petitioners were deprived of being considered for promotion to the post of Development Officer (DO for short) from the post of ADO. It is projected that the respondent no. 1, as an employer, published the gradation list of employees as on 31.03.1994 and thereafter on 31.12.1998. Thereafter, the gradation list of Page No.# 9/17

employees was published on 31.12.2006. It is submitted that between the 31.12.1998 and 31.12.2006, no gradation list was published. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent authorities did not convene any DPC (Departmental Promotion Committee) meeting from June, 2006 to November, 2009 and during this period, twenty six vacancies arose in the rank of ADO. Referring to the statements made in affidavit-in-reply filed in WP(C) 5815/2014, it is projected that in the year 2012 total six vacancies were fixed. In the year 2013, twelve vacancies in total were there. The grievance of the petitioners is that according

to the relevant circular of the Department of Personnel and Training dated 10 th March, 1989 bearing O.M. No. F.22011/5/86-Estt.D, the DPC is required to consider year wise vacancies position. However, in the present case in hand, the DPC had considered vacancies which arose in 2012, 2013 and 2014 and thereby the zone of consideration was extended and larger number of reserved category candidates, who were junior to the petitioner were considered for promotion. The petitioners in WP(C) 5815/2014 have made the calculation to project that the six vacancies for the year 2012 was inclusive of two vacancies for SC and four vacancies for ST and therefore, it has been projected as no more SC or ST candidates were in the consideration zone, four posts was to be filled up with general candidates in order of seniority. It is projected that for the year 2012 as both backlog vacancies of SC was filled up, there was no backlog for SC and there was only four backlog for ST candidates. Similarly for the year 2013, it is projected that out of 12 vacancies, only one candidate was for ST candidate which fell within the consideration zone and no SC candidate would fall on that zone. Accordingly, it is projected that nine vacancies could be filled up for general candidate two of SC and one of ST candidates and resultantly, as one ST post was filled up, the backlog position would be two for SC, three for ST and one for general (short fall) and therefore, the vacancy position was not required to be filled up and was required to be kept as backlog vacancies. In connection with the year 2014, it is projected that out of six fresh vacancies, five was for general, one for SC and none for ST candidates and the backlog vacancies would be two for SC and 4 for ST and therefore, as no SC/ ST candidates came within the consideration zone, five posts were to be filled up with general category and one post was required to be kept as vacant. Therefore, it is projected that after promotions to the post of DO in the year 2014, the position of backlog vacancies would be 4 for ST and two for SC in Page No.# 10/17

2013 and there would be a short fall for one post for the year 2014 were all the posts already kept vacant.

4) The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that WP(C) 5815/2014 was filed when the private respondent therein, namely, D. Suresh, ADO was promoted to the post of DO and accordingly, the petitioners in the said writ petition had approached for setting aside the office O.M. dated 12.08.2014 for promoting the private respondent nos. 5 to 13 and the petitioners had also prayed for quashing the O.M. dated 29.10.2014, promoting respondent no. 13 to the rank of DO with all consequential benefits. The petitioners had also prayed for considering the case of the petitioners for promotion to the rank of DO in accordance with their position in the gradation list of 31.12.2006 published vide O.M. dated 27.02.2008.

5) Thereafter, WP(C) 6901/2014 was filed with a prayer for setting aside the impugned O.M. dated 04.12.2009 by which private respondent nos. 5 to 24 were promoted to the rank of ADO with all consequential benefits, for setting aside the impugned O.M. dated 12.08.2014 and also impugned O.M. dated 29.10.2014, referred to above and for a direction to the respondents authorities to place the petitioners above the private respondents in the seniority list of ADO. The petitioners had also prayed for directing the respondents authorities to review the representation of reserve category persons basing on quantifiable data in the cadre of ADO and DO and to grant further promotion on the said rank with all consequential benefits. The petitioners in WP(C) 6901/2014 had filed WP(C) 3717/2016 with a prayer for setting aside the impugned order of O.M. dated 14.06.2016 by which private respondent nos. 4 and 5 were promoted to the rank of ADO with all consequential benefits and for a direction to the respondent authorities to place the petitioner above the private respondent nos. 4 and 5 in the seniority list of ADO. The same petitioners had approached this Court again by filing WP(C) 7777/2016 for setting aside the impugned order of O.M. dated 16.12.2016 by which private respondent no . 4 was promoted to the rank of DO with all consequential benefits with a further direction to the respondent authorities to place the petitioner above the private Page No.# 11/17

respondent no. 4 in the seniority list of ADO.

6) The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the O.M. on reservation for SC/ST and other backward classes in service issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, Govt. of India, which is annexed to WP(C) 7777/2016 as Annexure- 13, the O.M. dated 10.03.1989, O.M. dated 30.01.2015 (Annexure-14) and O.M. dated 06.01.2006 (Annexure-15), which contains guidelines for the DPCs and procedure to be adopted in conduct of DPC. Instead of quoting the said O.M.s it would suffice to mention that as per the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the DPC should consider nearby vacancies and that if any vacancies arose after the last DPC, it was required that supplementary DPC shall be constituted for making selection. It is also submitted that without the gradation list being finalized, the DPC should not have consider the promotion of the various candidates to the promotional post of ADO and DO. Reference is also made to the procedure of DPC as per O.M. dated 10.03.1989 and it is also submitted that vacancies of various group and period cannot be clubbed together.

7) Referring to the various gradation list on record, the learned counsel for the petitioners has projected that various persons promoted in the post of ADO and DO, superseding the petitioners herein were not even born in the gradation list on record, being gradation list of 1998, 2006 and 2009.

8) Explaining the cause of delay in challenging the promotion granted to the private respondents, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that it is only when promotions were made in the year 2014, that the petitioners become aware of them being superseded and therefore, the writ petitions were filed as and when they found themselves aggrieved by the promotion of the private respondents impleaded in these four writ petitions. The learned counsel for the petitioners, in his written note has referred to 13 case citations apart from quoting a part of one of the said case in his written note. However, recital of relevant passage of none of the cases were actually referred before the Court. In this Page No.# 12/17

connection, it is observed that in one of these writ petitions, reference is made to pendency of WP(C) 5771/2013 and WP(C) 6841/2013 before the High Court of Kerala. A copy of the common judgment in WP(C) 5771/2013 and WP(C) 6841/2013 along with WP(C) 11271/2015 have been downloaded by this Court. On a perusal of the said common judgement dated 21.12.2016, it does not appear that DPC of the promotion which are under challenged in this four writ petitions was a subject matter of adjudication before the High Court of Kerala. In the said judgment reference is made to Section 25(2)(xv) of the Rubber Board Act, 1947 and the Rubber Board (Service) Rules, 1961 has also been referred. The said order shall be dealt with at a subsequent stage.

9) Per-contra, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents has made a short submission to the effect that the order of promotion which has been put to challenge in these four writ petitions are all fall out of the DPC meeting held on 21.07.2014. It is submitted that the minutes of the DPC has not been put to challenge in any of the four writ petitions. It is also submitted that the petitioners is of general category and the private respondents impleaded in the four writ petitions are of reserved category. In this regard, it is submitted that the petitioners who belongs to unreserved class, could not have challenged the promotion of SC category person. Referring to the rejoinder of affidavit filed in WP(C) 5815/2014, it is submitted that not only there was vacancies which was considered but the position of the petitioner in WP(C) 5815/2014 was at serial no. 86 of the general category and the said petitioner was not found eligible, as such, case of the said writ petitions was not considered. It is further submitted that the prayer made in four writ petitions, insofar as it relates to placing the petitioners above the private respondents is concerned, the same would have the effect of disturbing the seniority position of all those whose name appeared after the private respondents. In this connection, it is submitted that without assailing the DPC minutes of 21.07.2014 and without any challenge to the impugned O.M. dated 04.12.2009 in three writ petitions except in WP(C) 6901/2014, the relief prayed for by the petitioners in other writ petitions cannot be considered by this Court. In respect of challenge made to the OM 04.12.2009 in WP(C) 6901/2014, the learned Senior Counsel of the respondents has referred to the case of P.S. Sadasivaswamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 2271:

Page No.# 13/17

(1975) 1 SCC 152 wherein the Supreme Court of India had held that a person aggrieved by an order of promoting a junior over his head should approach the Court at least within 6(six) months or at the most, within a year after such promotion and it is further held that it would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for the courts to refuse to exercise their extra- ordinary powers under the Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the case of persons who do not approach expeditiously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach the court to put forward stale claims and try to unsettle, settled matters. The said ratio was followed by this Court in the judgment and order dated 22.08.2019 passed in WP(C) 3734/2017 (Mridul Chandra Das Vs. State of Assam and Ors.) . It is lastly submitted that although the gradation list was not prepared, seniority position was maintained and the DPC had consider the seniority position as per the list maintained.

10) The learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4 and 5 has made his submission to oppose the prayer made in this writ petition and he has adopted the arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent authorities in these writ petitions.

11) The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, senior counsel for the respondent nos. 2, 3, 4 and the learned counsel for the private respondent nos. 4 and 5 in W.P.(C) No. 3717/2016 have received due consideration by the Court. The pleadings and materials on record and written note of the learned counsel for the petitioners have been perused.

12) There is no dispute at the Bar that the DPC is the authority competent to take into consideration the applicable Rules in force governing the entitlement to promotion from amongst the list of persons who are considered eligible to be considered for promotion to the next higher promotional post. The learned counsel for the petitioner has made his meticulously submissions on the manner in which the DPC is required to consider the cases of reserved category candidates for promotion of quota earmarked for reserved category. He had taken pains to explain the distinction between shortfall of reservation and number of Page No.# 14/17

backlog reserved vacancies in the cadre. This was done to stress on the point that as the vacancy position for 3 years was considered by the DPC together without taking into account the year-wise vacancy, however, by taking into consideration that the cadre strength of the post of ADO was 107. Nonetheless, in all the four writ petitions, the minutes of the DPC meeting held on 21.07.2014 has not been challenged. Therefore, the challenge to consequential (i) OM dated 12.08.2014 and 29.10.2004, impugned in W.P.(C) No. 5815/2014, and (ii) OM dated 16.12.2016, impugned in W.P.(C) No. 7777/2016, which are fall-out of the DPC minutes dated 21.07.2014, is held to be not maintainable on facts and in law. Similarly, the minutes of DPC meeting held on 04.12.2009 was not challenged in W.P.(C) No. 5815/2014, W.P.(C) No. 7777/2016 and W.P.(C) 3717/2016. Therefore, the challenge of consequential OM dated 14.06.2016 is held to be not maintainable. The minutes of the DPC meeting held on 04.12.2009 has been challenged in W.P.(C) 6901/2014. However, guided by the ratio laid down in the case of P.S. Sadasivaswamy (supra), as followed by this Court in the case of Mridul Chandra Das Vs. The State of Assam & 5 others, W.P.(C) 3732/2017, decided on 22.08.2019, the belatedly challenge is held to be not sustainable on facts and in law, because by this time benefits had accrued to several persons and in this regard, para-2 of the said cited case of P.S. Sadasivaswamy (supra) is reproduced below:-

"2. The main grievance of the appellant is that the second respondent who was junior to him as Assistant Engineer was promoted as Divisional Engineer in 1957 by relaxing the relevant rules regarding the length of service necessary for promotion as Divisional Engineer and that his claim for a similar relaxation was not considered at that time. The learned Judge of the Madras High Court who heard the writ petition was of the view that the relaxation of the rules in favour of the second respondent without considering the appellant's case was arbitrary. In view of the statement on behalf of the Government that such relaxation was given only in the case of overseas scholars, which statement was not controverted, it is not possible to agree with the view of the learned Judge. Be that as it may, if the appellant was aggrieved by it he should have approached the court in the year 1957 after the two representations made by him had failed to produce any result. One cannot sleep over the matter and come to the Court questioning that relaxation in the year 1971. There is the further fact that even after respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were promoted as Divisional Engineers over the head of the appellant he did not come to the Court questioning it. There was a third opportunity for him to have come to the Court when respondents Nos. 2 to 4 were again promoted as Superintending Engineers over the head of the appellant. After fourteen long years because of the tempting prospect of the Chief Engineership he has come to the Court. In effect he Page No.# 15/17

wants to unscramble a scrambled egg. It is very difficult for the Government to consider whether any relaxation of the rules should have been made in favour of the appellant in the year 1957. The conditions that were prevalent in 1957 cannot be reproduced now. In any case as the Government had decided as a matter of policy, as they were entitled to do, not to relax the rules in favour of any except overseas scholars it will be wholly pointless to direct them to consider the appellant's case as if nothing had happened after 1957. Not only respondent No.2 2 but also respondents Nos. 3 and 4 who were the appellant's juniors became Divisional Engineers in 1957 apparently on the ground that their merits deserved their promotion over the head of the appellant. He did not question it. Nor did he question the promotion of his juniors as Superintending Engineers over his head, he could have come to the Court on every one of these three occasions. A person aggrieved by an order of promoting a junior over his head should approach the Court at least within six months or at the most a year of such promotion. It is not that there is any period of limitation for the Courts to exercise their powers under Article 226 nor is it that there can never be a case where the Courts cannot interfere in a matter after the passage of a certain length of time. But it would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for the Courts to refuse to exercise their extraordinary powers under Article 226 in the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach the Court to put forward stale claims and try to unsettle matters. The petitioner's petition should, therefore, have been dismissed in limine. Entertaining such petitions is a waste of time of the Court. It clogs the work of the Court and impedes the work of the Court in considering legitimate grievances as also its normal work. We consider that the High Court was right in dismissing the appellant's petition as well as the appeal."

13) It may be mentioned that although the learned counsel for the petitioners had strenuously argued that in order to have an effective DPC, the gradation list has to be prepared annually, but to that effect no prayer has been made in these four writ petitions.

14) Moreover, in these writ petitions, prayer has been made for a direction to the respondent authorities to place the petitioners above the private respondents, which cannot be granted because by directing the respondent authorities to place the petitioners above the private respondents, the seriatim of the persons placed after the private respondents and those whose names appear before the petitioners would have to be altered. However, persons who are likely to be affected by such exercise have not been made a party respondent in these writ petitions. Hence, the relief for directing the respondent authorities to Page No.# 16/17

place the petitioners above the private respondents is hit by the principles of non- joinder of necessary parties.

15) Under the facts of this present case, the cases cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable because of distinguishable facts. It is seen that in W.P.(C) No. 3717/2016, the petitioners have made reference to the interim order passed by High Court of Kerala in W.P.(C) 5771/2013. However, a copy of common judgment and order dated 21.12.2016, passed by the High Court of Kerala in W.P.(C) No. 5771/2013, W.P.(C) No. 6841/2013 and W.P.(C) No. 11271/2015 was downloaded by the Court and perused. However, from the facts narrated therein, the learned counsel for the petitioners could not show if any gradation list, DPC, OMs or orders impugned in these writ petitions had been examined by the said Hon'ble Court. Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioners could not show the relevancy of the said case cited by him.

16) Therefore, in view of the discussions above, the challenge as made in W.P.(C) Nos. 7777/2016, 6901/2014 and 3717/2016 fails and the said writ petitions are dismissed.

17) In connection with W.P.(C) No. 5815/2014, the respondent nos. 1 to 3 (i.e. Rubber Board) has not been able to show that in order to promote the private respondent no. 13, namely D. Suresh, any DPC or Supplementary DPC was held. Hence, the challenge to the promotion of respondent no. 13 in W.P.(C) No. 3717/2016 is sustained and, as such, the impugned OM No. 3/23/1(1)/2014/EST dated 29.10.2014 in respect of respondent no.13 therein is set aside by making the interim order dated 14.11.2014 passed in W.P.(C) 5815/2014 absolute. The other prayers made in the writ petition stands refused.

18) In view of the discussions above, the Court is inclined to pass the following -

Page No.# 17/17

ORDER

19) W.P.(C) No. 5815/2014 stands partly allowed to the extent as indicated above.

20) W.P.(C) Nos. 7777/2016, 6901/2014 and 3717/2016 stands dismissed.

21)        The parties are left to bear their own cost.



22)        Before parting with the records, it is hoped that the dismissal of WP(C) Nos.

7777/2016, 6901/2014 and 3717/2016 shall not stand as a bar for the subsequent DPC to consider year wise vacancy position as per the Office Memorandum in force, the back-log and shortfall vacancy position for the reserved class and take appropriate decision in accordance with law. However, it is made clear that this observation shall not be construed as a direction of the Court.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant