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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.