Kerala High Court
Shyraj T.V vs State Of Kerala on 4 November, 2025
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
1
OP(KAT)Nos.258 and 351 of 2015
and 431 of 2018 2025:KER:82651
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 / 13TH KARTHIKA, 1947
OP(KAT) NO. 258 OF 2015
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29.06.2015 IN OA(EKM) NO.588 OF 2015
OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONERS/APPLICANTS:
1 SHYRAJ T.V.,AGED 38 YEARS
S/O. VASU, BEAT FOREST OFFICER,THAMARASSERI FOREST
RANGE OFFICE,KOZHIKODE DIVISION,KERALA 673 008
RESIDING AT THATTARI HOUSE,MAYANADU P.O, KOZHIKODE
2 SAJU G.S,AGED 38 YEARS
S/O. GOPALAN E.K, BEAT FOREST OFFICER,PARUVANNAMOOZHI
FOREST RANGE OFFICE,KOZHIKODE DIVISION,KERALA 673 019
RESIDING AT VIRIGHIN HOUSE,PARAMBRA P.O,LAST
KOLLADE,KOZHIKODE
3 EBRAYI,AGED 42 YEARS
S/O. KUNHIKALANTHAN,BEAT FOREST OFFICE,THAMARASSERI
FOREST RANGE OFFICE,KOZHIKODE DIVISION,KERALA 673 617
RESIDING AT NANMANAKUDY HOUSE,NOCHAD P.O,KOZHIKODE
4 BASHEER P,AGED 41 YEARS
S/O. MOOSA, BEAT FOREST OFFICE,THAMARASSERI FOREST
RANGE OFFICE, KOZHIKODE DIVISION,KERALA 673 019
RESIDING AT PARAMBATHIKUZHIYIL HOUSE, PANTHEERANKAVE
P.O, KOZHIKODE PIN 673 019
5 JAGADEESH KUMAR E
AGED 45 YEARS
BEAT FOREST OFFICE,THAMARASSERI FOREST RANGE OFFICE,
KOZHIKODE DIVISION,KERALA 673 019 MOB. RESIDING AT
DEVIKA BHAVAN, GOVINDAPURAM,KOZHIKODE
2
OP(KAT)Nos.258 and 351 of 2015
and 431 of 2018 2025:KER:82651
6 N BEJESH
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O. NARAYANAN NAIR, BEAT FOREST
OFFICER,KUTTIYODU,FOREST RANGE OFFICE, PASSUKADAVE
SECTION, KOZHIKODE DIVISION,KOZHIKODE,KERALA 673 524
RESIDING AT NAGATH THARA HOUSE, MUYIPOTH POST,
MEPPAYUR,VIA KOZHIKODE,MOB 9400344365
7 ASHRAF
S/O. UDRU, BEAT FOREST OFFICER,PURUVANNAMOOZHI,FOREST
RANGE OFFICE, KOZHIKODE DIVISION,KERALA 673 603
RESIDING AT KARAYIL HOUSE, KATTANGAL NIT PO, RANGE
OFFICE,KOZHIKODE DIVISION,KERALA
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.R.ANISON
SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI
SMT.P.A.RINUSA
SMT.SEEMANDHINI.V.P (SR)
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, FOREST AND WILD LIFE
DEPARTMENT,GOVT. SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,KERALA 695 001
2 THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
VAZHUTHACAUD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 014
3 THE CHIEF FOREST CONSERVATOR
OFFICE OF THE C.F.C NORTHERN CIRCLE,KANNUR,KERALA 670
001
4 P.A KUNHIMON
BEAT OFFICER,VILANGAD SECTION,KUTTIYARD RANGE,VILANGAD
BEAT ,KOZHIKODE 673 506
5 SHIBU A.B
SECTION FOREST OFFICER, WAYANAD WILD LIFE DIVISION,
WAYANAD.
6 BAIJU K.K
SECTION FOREST OFFICER, WAYANAD WILD LIFE DIVISION,
3
OP(KAT)Nos.258 and 351 of 2015
and 431 of 2018 2025:KER:82651
WAYANAD.
[ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 5 AND 6 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER
ORDER DATED 29.07.2015 IN IA NO.10937 OF 2015 IN
OP(KAT) No.258 OF 2015]
BY ADV SRI.P.K.MOHAMED JAMEEL
SRI.B UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL, SR.GP
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL WAS FINALLY HEARD ON
22.10.2025 ALONG WITH OPKAT NO.351 OF 2015 AND 431 OF 2018, THE
COURT ON 4.11.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
4
OP(KAT)Nos.258 and 351 of 2015
and 431 of 2018 2025:KER:82651
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 / 13TH KARTHIKA, 1947
OP(KAT) NO. 351 OF 2015
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04.03.2014 IN OA NO.532 OF 2014 OF
KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONERS/APPLICANTS:
1 SAJEEVKUMAR.S
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O.SIVASANKARA PILLAI, KUNNUVILA PUTHANVEEDU,
THURITHIKARA P.O., KUNNATHOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT WORKING
AS BEAT FOREST OFFICER, R.R.T.UNIT, FOREST RANGE
OFFICE, THALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DIVISION, KERALA-690540
MOB:9496402740.
2 MUKESHKUMAR
AGED 44 YEARS
S/O.P.KRISHNAPILLAI, LEKSHMI BHAVAN, SREENAGAR,
MANIKANDESWARAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,
WORKING AS FOREST GUARD, TALIPARAMBA RANGE, KANNUR
DISTRICT, KERALA-695013 MOB: 9995888125.
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.R.ANISON
SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI
SMT.P.A.RINUSA
SMT.SEEMANDHINI V.P (SR)
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
5
OP(KAT)Nos.258 and 351 of 2015
and 431 of 2018 2025:KER:82651
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, FOREST AND WILD LIFE
DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
KERALA-695001.
2 THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.
3 THE CHIEF FOREST CONSERVATOR
OFFICE OF THE C.F.C.NORTHERN CIRCLE, KANNUR, KERALA-
670001.
BY ADV B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL WAS FINALLY HEARD ON
22.10.2025 ALONG WITH OPKAT 258 OF 2015 AND 431 OF 2018, THE COURT
ON 4.11.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
6
OP(KAT)Nos.258 and 351 of 2015
and 431 of 2018 2025:KER:82651
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 / 13TH KARTHIKA, 1947
OP(KAT) NO. 431 OF 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19.09.2018 IN OA NO.1734 OF 2018 OF
KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONERS/APPLICANTS:
1 MADHUKUMAR P.J.
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O.NJANAMUTHU, PUTHENVEETTIL (H), COMBAYAR P.O.,
IDUKKI DIST-685552, WORKING AS BEAT FOREST OFFICER,
DEVIKULAM FOREST RANGE ,MUNNAR DIVISION
2 HARISON SASI,S/O.SASI
AGED 38 YEARS
IRAPPANAL (H) N.R.CITY P.O., RAJAKKAD ,IDUKKI DIST.-
685566,WORKING AS BEAT FOREST OFFICER, MUNNAR FOREST
RANGE ,MUNNAR DIVISION
3 ANEESH JOSEPH,
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O. JOSEPH M.J., MANNATHANIYIL (H) COMBAYAR P.O.,
IDUKKI DIST.-688552,WORKING AS BEAT FOREST OFFICER,
ADIMALI FOREST RANGE ,MUNNAR DIVISION
4 ANIL T.G.,S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR
AGED 48 YEARS
THADATHIL (H), KUMARAMANGALAM P.O., IDUKKI DIST-685
608,WORKING AS BEAT FOREST OFFICER, THODUPUZHA FLYING
7
OP(KAT)Nos.258 and 351 of 2015
and 431 of 2018 2025:KER:82651
SQUAD RANGE, KOTHAMANGALAM FLYING SQUAD DIVISION
5 JOBIMON P.C.,
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O.CHACKO, PULLANIKAVUMKAL (H), PUSHPAKANDAM P.O.,
IDUKKI DIST.-685552, WORKING AS BEAT FOREST OFFICER,
THEKKADY FOREST RANGE ,PTR EAST DIVISION THEKKADY
6 NELSON GEORGE,
AGED 44 YEARS
S/O.GEORGE, ANCHERIL (H), KOLANI P.O., IDUKKI DIST,685
608,WORKING AS BEAT FOREST OFFICER, NAGAMPARA FOREST
RANGE ,KOTTAYAM DIVISION
7 CHRISTO JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH
AGED 37 YEARS
MALIYECKAL (H), NEDUMKANDAM P.O., -6855563,WORKING AS
BEAT FOREST OFFICER, KUMILY FOREST RANGE ,KOTTAYAM
DIVISION
8 TIJIMON M.R.
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN, MOONNUKANDATHIL (H), UPPUTHODU P.O.,
IDUKKI DIST-685 604,WORKING AS BEAT FOREST OFFICER,
KANTHALLOOR FOREST RANGE ,MARAYOOR DIVISION
9 SHYRAJ M.M.,
AGED 38 YEARS
MANJUMATTATHIL (H), NEYYASSERY P.O., IDUKKI DIST-
685581,WORKING AS BEAT FOREST OFFICER, THODPUZHA
FLYING SQUAD RANGE, KOTHAMANGALAM FLYING SQUAD
DIVISION
10 SUDHEESH P.R.,S/O.RAJAPPAN
AGED 36 YEARS
PATHIKALAYIL (H) COMBAYAR P.O., IDUKKI DIST.-
685552,WORKING AS BEAT FOREST OFFICER, MARAYOOR FOREST
RANGE ,MARAYOOR DIVISION
11 SHIBU P.K.,
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O. KRISHNAN NAIR, SHIBUNIVAS (H), THODUPUZHA,
IDUKII-685 584,WORKING AS BEAT FOREST OFFICER,
THODUPUZHA FOREST RANGE , KOTHAMANGALAM DIVISION
12 SHIBUKUMAR V.,
AGED 39 YEARS
8
OP(KAT)Nos.258 and 351 of 2015
and 431 of 2018 2025:KER:82651
S/O. VASUDEVAN, VADAKKEPPARAMBIL (H), COMBAYAR P.O.,
IDUKKI DIST-685 552,WORKING AS BEAT FOREST OFFICER,
ADIMALI FOREST RANGE ,MUNNAR DIVISION
13 BIJU SEBSTIAN,S/O.SEBASTIAN
AGED 40 YEARS
PALAKKATTU (H), RAJAKKADU P.O., IDUKKI DIST-
685566,WORKING AS BEAT FOREST OFFICER, KUMILY FOREST
RANGE ,KOTTAYAM DIVISION
14 VINOY SEBSTIAN,
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O. SEBASTIAN P.A., PALATHUMTHALCKAL(H), MUTTOM P.O.,
IDUKKI DIST-68587,WORKING AS BEAT FOREST OFFICER,
KUMILY FOREST RANGE , KOTTAYAM DIVISION
15 SHIBUY V.S.
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O. SANKARAN, VELLIYAMKUNNEL (H), THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI
DIST-685584, WORKING AS BEAT FOREST OFFICER,
THODUPUZHA FOREST RANGE ,KOTHAMANGALAM DIVISION
16 SAJEEV K.K.,S/O.KUNJOONJU
AGED 46 YEARS
KOCHUPALACKAL HOUSE, MANIYARAMKUDY P.O., IDUKKI
DISTRICT-685 602,WORKING AS BEAT FOREST OFFICER,
KALIYAS FOREST RANGE , KALIYAS P.O.,KOTHAMANGALAM
DIVISION
BY ADV SMT.M.R.JAYALATHA
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,FORT AND WILD LIFE
DEPARTMENT , GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001
2 PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST,
FOREST HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
695 014
3 ADDIITONAL PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS,
FOREST HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014
4 CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS HIGH RANGE CIRCLE
9
OP(KAT)Nos.258 and 351 of 2015
and 431 of 2018 2025:KER:82651
KOTTAYAM,ARANYA BHAVAN COMPLEX, S.H.MOUNT P.O.,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 006
5 SRI. SURENDRAKUMAR V.,
S/O. VELAYUDHAN, AGED 49 YEARS, WORKING AS BEAT FOREST
OFFICER, PAMPA FOREST RANGE , PTR WEST DIVISION,
KANAMALA P.O., EZHUKUMON-686 510,KOTTAYAM DIST
6 SRI.RAMAKRISHNAN M.B.,
S/O. RAMANKUTTY, AGED 53 YEARS, WORKING AS BEAT FOREST
OFFICER, PAMPA FOREST RANGE , PTR WEST DIVISION,
KANAMALA P.O., EZHUKUMON,KOTTAYAM DIST-686 510,
7 SRI.ARUNKUMAR P.T.,
S/O. THAKAPPAN,AGED 45 YEARS, WORKING AS BEAT FOREST
OFFICER, ERUMELI FOREST RANGE , KOTTAYAM DIVISION,
ERUMELI P.O.,KOTTAYAM DIST-686 509
8 SRI.SAJIMON T.,
S/O. THANKAPPAN, AGED 48 YEARS, WORKING AS BEAT FOREST
OFFICER, ERUMELI FOREST RANGE , KOTTAYAM DIVISION,
ERUMELI P.O., KOTTAYAM DIST-686 509
9 SRI. RAJESH K.B.,
S/O KESAVAN, AGED 40 YEARS, WORKING AS BEAT FOREST
OFFICER, PAMPA FOREST RANGE , PTR WEST DIVISION,
KANAMALA P.O., EZHUKUMON-686 510,KOTTAYAM DIST
10 SRI.SURESH V.G.,
S/O.GOPALAN AGED 44 YEARS, WORKING AS BEAT FOREST
OFFICER, PAMPA FOREST RANGE , PTR WEST DIVISION,
KANAMALA P.O., EZHUKUMON-686 510,KOTTAYAM DIST
11 SRI.RAJAN K.K.,
S/O. KRISHNAN, AGED 50 YEARS, WORKING AS BEAT FOREST
OFFICER, PAMPA FOREST RANGE , PTR WEST DIVISION,
KANAMALA P.O., EZHUKUMON-686 510,KOTTAYAM DIST
12 SRI.SAJIMON.K.K
S/O. KUNJAPPAN, AGED 43 YEARS, WORKING AS BEAT FOREST
OFFICER, ERUMELI FOREST RANGE , KOTTAYAM DIVISION,
ERUMELI P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 509
13 SRI.ANEESHKUMAR M.S.
S/O. SUKUMARAN, AGED 39 YEARS, WORKING AS BEAT FOREST
OFFICER, PAMPA FOREST RANGE , PTR WEST DIVISION,
KANAMALA P.O., EZHUKUMON-686 510,KOTTAYAM DIST
10
OP(KAT)Nos.258 and 351 of 2015
and 431 of 2018 2025:KER:82651
14 SRI.MANI P.N.,
S/O. NAGAN, AGED 48 YEARS, WORKING AS BEAT FOREST
OFFICER, ANAKULAM FOREST RANGE , MANKULAM DIVISION,
ANAKULAM P.O., IDUKKI DIST-685 565
15 SRI.JIJU KURIAN
S/O. KURIAN, AGED 42 YEARS, WORKING AS BEAT FOREST
OFFICER, PEERMEDE RESEARCH DIVISION PEERMADE P.O., -
685 531, IDUKKI DIST .
16 SRI.BIJU T.R.,
S/O. RAMAN, AGED 44 YEARS, WORKING AS BEAT FOREST
OFFICER, KUMILY FOREST RANGE , KOTTAYAM DIVISION,
KUMILY P.O., IDUKKI DIST,PIN-685 509
17 SMT.SUGANTHI P.,
D/O. PADMANABHAN, AGED 46 YEARS, WORKING AS BEAT
FOREST OFFICER,ERUMELI FOREST RANGE , KOTTAYAM
DIVISION, ERUMELI P.O., KOTTAYAM DIST, 686 509
18 SRI. BALAKRISHNAN N.K.,
S/O. KOLUMBAN, AGED 47 YEARS, WORKING AS BEAT FOREST
OFFICER, THODUPUZHA FOREST RANGE, KOTHAMANGALAM
DIVISION, MUTTOM P.O. SANKARAPPILLI-685 587
19 SRI.VIJAYAN K.N.,
S/O. NARAYANAN, AGED 47 YEARS, WORKING AS BEAT FOREST
OFFICER, ERUMELI FOREST RANGE , KOTTAYAM DIVISION,
ERUMELI P.O., KOTTAYAM DIST-686 509
20 SMT. SUDHAMOL DANIEL
D/O. DANIEL, AGED 45 YEARS, WORKING AS BEAT FOREST
OFFICER, NAGARAMPARA FOREST RANGE , KOTTAYAM DIVISION,
IDUKKI COLONY P.O-685 602
21 SRI.GIREESH P.K.,
S/O. KUMARAN, AGED 44 YEARS, WORKING AS BEAT FOREST
OFFICER, KUMILY FOREST RANGE , KOTTAYAM DIVISION,
KUMILY P.O. IDUKKI DIST,PIN-685 509
22 SRI. SANTHOSH O.I.,
S/O. ITTIYATHI, AGED 41 YEARS, WORKING AS BEAT FOREST
OFFICER, THODUPUZHA FOREST RANGE , KOTHAMANGALAM
DIVISION, MUTTOM P.O., SANAKARAPPILLI-685 587
23 SRI. SANTHOSH P.G.,
11
OP(KAT)Nos.258 and 351 of 2015
and 431 of 2018 2025:KER:82651
S/O. GOPALAN, AGED 37 YEARS, WORKING AS BEAT FOREST
OFFICER, ADIMALI FOREST RANGE , MUNNAR DIVISION,
KOOMBANPARA P.O., IDUKKI DIST-685 561
24 SRI.SURESHKUMAR P.N.,
S/O. NARAYANAN, AGED 45 YEARS, WORKING AS BEAT FOREST
OFFICER, THODUPUZHA FOREST RANGE , KOTHAMANGALAM
DIVISION, MUTTOM P.O., SANAKARAPPILLI-685 587
25 SRI.MADHU DAMODHARAN,
S/O. DAMODHARAN, AGED 42 YEARS, WORKING AS BEAT FOREST
OFFICER, NERIYAMANGALAM FOREST RANGE , NERIYAMANGALAM
P.O., -685 593
26 SRI.ANISHKUMAR P.K.,
S/O. KELU, AGED 42 YEARS, WORKING AS BEAT FOREST
OFFICER, ADIMALI FOREST RANGE , MUNNAR DIVISION,
KOOMBANPARA P.O., IDUKKI DIST.PIN-685 561
27 SRI.JOHNSON P.A.
S/O. ABRAHAM,PANACKAL (H), AGED 41 YEARS, WORKING AS
BEAT FOREST OFFICER, ADIMALI FOREST RANGE , MUNNAR
DIVISION, KOOMBANPARA P.O., ,IDUKKI DIST,PIN-685 561
28 SREEKUMAR. P.,
S/O. GOPI,. AGED 41 YEARS, WORKING AS BEAT FOREST
OFFICER, THODUPUZHA FOREST RANGE , KOTHAMANGALAM
DIVISION, MUTTOM P.O., SANAKARAPPILLI-685 587
29 JOMON THOMAS,
S/O THOMAS, AGED 40 YEARS, WORKING AS BEAT FOREST
OFFICER, ADIMALI FOREST RANGE, MUNNAR DIVISION,
KOOBANPARA P.O., IDUKKI DIST,PIN-685 561
BY ADVS.
SRI. B UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
SMT.SUMATHI DANDAPANI (SR)
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL WAS FINALLY HEARD ON
22.10.2025 ALONG WITH OPKAT NOS 258 AND 351 OF 2015, THE COURT ON
4.11.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
12
OP(KAT)Nos.258 and 351 of 2015
and 431 of 2018 2025:KER:82651
COMMON JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna, J.
The applicants in the respective original applications, such as
O.A.(EKM)No.588 of 2015, O.A.No.532 of 2014, and O.A.No.
1734 of 2018 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal,
Thiruvananthapuram (the 'Tribunal', in short) filed these original
petitions challenging the orders dated 29.06.2015, 04.03.2014,
and 19.09.2018 respectively, passed by the Tribunal in those
original applications. Since the issue involved in these original
petitions is one and the same, they are being heard together and
disposed of by this common judgment. For convenience of
reference, the parties and documents are referred to in this
judgment as they are in O.P.(KAT)No.258 of 2015, unless
otherwise stated.
2. Going by the averments in O.A.(EKM)No.588 of 2015, the
petitioners are directly recruited Forest Guards appointed and
working in the already sanctioned cadre post in the northern circle
of the Forest Department. By Annexure A2 order, the State
Government decided to appoint 300 Forest Guards exclusively
OP(KAT)Nos.258 and 351 of 2015
and 431 of 2018 2025:KER:82651
from Tribals. All those Tribals were appointed at a time when the
PSC rank list, including the names of the petitioners, was in
existence. Along with proceedings dated 28.01.2010, the 3 rd
respondent issued a provisional seniority list of Forest Guards in
the northern Circle. Without considering the objection filed by the
petitioners to the seniority list, that provisional list was finalised
and issued along with Annexure A6 order dated 21.01.2012.
Challenging the validity of Annexure A6 order, Annexure A7 appeal
was filed by the petitioners. When steps were taken to operate
Annexure A6 seniority list for effecting promotion to the next
higher post, the petitioners filed O.A. No.654 of 2014 challenging
the validity of that seniority list. That O.A. was disposed of by the
Tribunal by Annexure A8 order dated 27.10.2014, directing the
Government to take a decision in Annexure A7 appeal within four
months. In implementation of the above direction issued by the
Tribunal in Annexure A8, Annexure A9 order was issued by the
Government on 27.04.2015 rejecting Annexure A7 appeal filed by
the petitioners. Hence the petitioners approached the Tribunal
seeking the following reliefs:
"a) to set aside Annexure-A9 order since the same is issued
OP(KAT)Nos.258 and 351 of 2015
and 431 of 2018 2025:KER:82651
on a total misunderstanding of the spirit behind Rule 17A
and 27(c) proviso of K.S& S.S.R, as also against the decision
rendered by the Hon'ble High Court interpreting the above
provisions;
b) to set aside Annexure A6 seniority list to the extent of
ranking the applicants below the specially recruited Tribal
Forest Guard, since such ranking is in violation of applicants'
fundamental right under Article 14 and 16 of the
Constitution;
c) to direct respondents 1 to 3 not to operate Annexure A6
seniority list for effecting promotion to the post of Forester
(re-designated as Section Forest Officer) without getting
prior permission from this Hon'ble Tribunal;
d) to direct the respondents 1 to 3 not to promote any
specially recruited Forest Guard included in Annexure A6
seniority list (from Sl. No.123 onwards) to the post of
Forester (re-designated as Section Forest Officer) before
promoting the applicants to that post".
2.1. By the impugned order dated 29.06.2015, the Tribunal
dismissed that original application. Paragraphs 7 to 10 and the last
paragraph of that order read thus:
"7. Normally, the seniority of an incumbent has to be
determined with reference to the date of effective advice by
the Public Service Commission when an appointment is
made based on the advice of the Public Service Commission.
In this case, the applicants and the scheduled tribe
members were assigned seniority with reference to their
OP(KAT)Nos.258 and 351 of 2015
and 431 of 2018 2025:KER:82651
respective dates of advice. So, normally, no one can have
any grievance against that. But, while challenging the
seniority assigned to the scheduled tribe members, the
applicants are collaterally attacking the very recruitment of
them made in 2003 based on Annexure A2 order issued in
2001. We think, the same is not permissible. Whatever be
the flaw thought to be contained in Annexure A2 GO or the
recruitment made pursuant to it, the same cannot be
allowed to be collaterally attacked after the lapse of several
years. It is one of the well settled principles of
Administrative Law that even if an order is void, unless the
same is challenged in appropriate proceedings within the
prescribed time limit by the person having the standing for
the same, the said order will remain valid like any other
order. Therefore, the attack made to the aforementioned
orders at this distance of time is plainly untenable. See the
words of the learned authors HWR Wade and C.F.Forsyth in
Administrative Law 10th Edition:
"The truth is that the court will invalidate an order only
if the right remedy is sought by the right person in the
right proceedings and circumstances. The order may be
a 'nullity' and `void' but these terms have no absolute
sense: their meaning is relative, depending upon the
court's willingness to grant relief in any particular
situation."
8. The Public Service Commission published the notification
pursuant to Annexures A2 to A4. Thereafter, rank lists were
published and advices were made in 2003. After verification
OP(KAT)Nos.258 and 351 of 2015
and 431 of 2018 2025:KER:82651
of the antecedents, the appointees were regularised in
service also by Annexure A10 dated 22.8.2003. The above
proceedings remain unchallenged. But, the learned senior
counsel who appeared for the applicants submitted that only
now the applicants are aggrieved by their appointments as
they are placed above them in the seniority list and they will
be preferred for further promotion. We think such a
contention cannot be accepted. The applicants are persons
advised for appointment as Forest Guards on various dates
between 28.10.2002 and 4.1.2008. So, they must be
knowing that the advice and appointments made ln 2003 of
scheduled tribe members will affect them as such persons
also will get seniority with effect from their dates of advice.
The scheduled tribe members who are appointed in 2003
are entitled to sit back and enjoy whatever benefits that are
flowing from the said appointment. Their rights cannot be
collaterally attacked and disturbed at this distance of time.
Further, we notice that even after the publication of the
seniority list Annexure A6, the applicants have chosen not
to challenge Annexure A6 in time. The rules provide for six
months time for filing appeal. But, it was filed only in
September, 2014 with a delay of 722 days. So, there is delay
and laches from the part of the applicants. There is
acquiescence also on their side and when the turn of the
scheduled tribe members arose for promotion, the
applicants cannot be allowed to challenge their initial
appointment and the seniority assigned to them. We fully
agree with the views of the Government that the candidates
OP(KAT)Nos.258 and 351 of 2015
and 431 of 2018 2025:KER:82651
who are appointed pursuant to the advice of the Public
Service Commission are entitled to get seniority under Rule
27(c) of the KS & SSR, whether it is special recruitment or
not.
9. One of the contentions raised by the learned senior
counsel is that the scheduled tribe members were appointed
to supernumerary posts. While making appointments to
supernumerary posts, if the appointing authority specifically
orders that such persons will not get seniority in the cadre
with effect from the date of advice, but only with effect from
the date their appointment is adjusted against regular
vacancy in the sanctioned strength, then the seniority will
be relegated accordingly. In this case, there was no such
order while advising or appointing the members of the
Scheduled tribe. Therefore, they are entitled to get the
benefit of rule 27(c) of the KS & SSR. We also notice that
the two decisions cited by the learned senior Counsel cannot
be pressed into service to impugn the appointments made
in the remote past. We think they would have helped the
applicants if they have chosen to challenge the
appointments of the scheduled tribe members in 2003. It is
true the fundamental rights cannot be waived, but still, the
principles of delay and laches apply with equal vigour to
such cases also. The delayed invocation of those rights will
affect the vested rights of others. So, the said contention
also fails.
10. Yet another disparate contention raised by the
applicants that the scheduled tribe members cannot be
OP(KAT)Nos.258 and 351 of 2015
and 431 of 2018 2025:KER:82651
further promoted is plainly irrational.
For all the above reasons, there is no merit in this Original
Application and it is accordingly dismissed in limine".
2.2. Going by the averments in O.A.No.532 of 2014, the
petitioners in this original petition are also persons working in the
forest department as forest guards. They were appointed in the
service on the basis of the advice issued by the Kerala Public
Service Commission. According to the petitioners, the 1 st
respondent took a decision to give appointments to persons from
the tribal community as forest guards, and about 300 persons
were thus given appointments by creating supernumerary posts.
The said appointments were made in violation of the quota fixed
for such appointments. No government orders were issued in
respect of regularising the said appointment against regular
vacancies. But the people who were given such appointments were
considered senior to the petitioners, and in the matter of
promotion, the petitioners apprehend that their legitimate claims
would be deprived. The petitioners came to know that the
respondents finalised Annexure A4 seniority list without
considering the objections submitted by them. Hence, the
OP(KAT)Nos.258 and 351 of 2015
and 431 of 2018 2025:KER:82651
petitioners approached the Tribunal with the original application
seeking the following reliefs:
"i) To direct the respondents to make promotions from the
post of forest guards from among the persons who are
occupying the regular and sanctioned posts.
ii) To declare that the 1st respondent's action in making
appointments over and above the reservations made in Rule
14 of Chapter II KSSR is illegal and void.
iii) Declare that the adjustment or regularization of the
supernumerary posts of forest guards created in the state
to make special recruitments from the members of the
Scheduled Tribe Community on the basis of a letter issued
by the 2nd respondent is invalid and illegal.
iv) To set aside Annexure A4 rank list to the extend it places
the applicants below the specially recruited persons who are
accommodated against the supernumerary posts".
2.3. By the impugned order dated 04.03.2014, the Tribunal
dismissed the original application. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of that
order read thus:
"3. We notice that the Government have overriding power
under Rule 39 to make appointment to public service,
ignoring the other provisions of the K.S. & S.S.Rs, including
those relating to reservation contained in Rules 14 to 17.
Rule 3 (a) of the K.S. & S.S.Rs provides that all first
appointments to public service shall be made on the basis
of the advice of the P.S.C. For appointment of scheduled
OP(KAT)Nos.258 and 351 of 2015
and 431 of 2018 2025:KER:82651
tribe candidates that rule was relaxed. It was a policy
decision of the Government. A person included in the rank
list does not have any indefeasible right. It is clear from Rule
3 (b) which reads as follows:
"(b) The inclusion of a candidate's name in any list of
approved candidates for any service (State or
Subordinate) or any class or category in a service, shall
not confer on him any claim to appointment to the
service, class or category."
ln view of the above position, applicants could not claim that
in every vacancy in the department they should be
appointed. Action of the Government in creating
supernumerary posts, appointing the scheduled tribe
candidates in them and later their regularization are all
remaining unchallenged.
4. Seniority of a person appointed to a service is governed
by Rule 27 of the K. S & S. S. Rs. Rule 27 (C) expressly
provides that the seniority of a person appointed to a class,
category or grade in service shall be determined by the date
of first effective advice. That was done in this case. Even if
there is some delay on the part of the appointing authority
in reporting vacancies and therefore delay in advising
candidates, the candidate who enters service can get
seniority in that category only from the date of his effective
advice. Claim for retrospectivity to advice based on the
ground of delay on the part of the appointing authority to
report vacancies is not supported by any rules. Therefore,
the challenge made by the applicants against the seniority
OP(KAT)Nos.258 and 351 of 2015
and 431 of 2018 2025:KER:82651
position assigned to them in Annexure A4 with reference to
their date of advice is plainly untenable. Accordingly, this
O.A .is dismissed."
2.4. Going by the averments in O.A.No.1734 of 2018, the
petitioners herein are working as Beat Forest Officers in High
Range Circle, Kottayam, in the Forest Department. The next
promotion post of the petitioners in the line of promotion is Section
Forest Officer. After the Muthanga incident, the Government
ordered special recruitment of tribal candidates, as forest guards
relaxing qualification. 300 candidates were selected as
supernumerary candidates without any regular vacancy. Later,
they were appointed in different districts without creating a single
additional post. It is learned that 47 candidates were appointed in
Idukki, 17 in Kottayam and 7 in Pathanamthitta Districts, which
forms the High Range Circle. The petitioners were recruited after
the special tribal recruitment against regular vacancies. The
Department has erroneously included several specially recruited
Scheduled Tribe candidates in the seniority list, overlooking the
seniority of the petitioners who are regular recruiters. The
supernumerary candidates were given seniority without any basis.
OP(KAT)Nos.258 and 351 of 2015
and 431 of 2018 2025:KER:82651
Though the representations were filed to the official respondents,
the same have not been considered. Now attempt is made to
promote the ineligible candidates without considering the
grievances of the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners approached
the Tribunal with the original application seeking the following
reliefs:
"i) Issue a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and
pass orders on Annexure A13 representation submitted by
the applicants within time limit fixed by this Hon'ble court
after affording an opportunity of hearing to the applicants.
ii) Direct the 4th respondent to recast Annexure A4 seniority
list and push down the specially recruited and
supernumerary candidates in the seniority list to their
respective places.
iii) Direct the 4th respondent to publish a revised final
seniority list fixing the seniority of applicants and specially
recruited tribal candidates in the Higher Range Circle
Kottayam.
iv) Issue a direction to the 4th respondent not to promote
any tribal candidates including the respondents 5 to 29 as
Section Forest Officers without finalizing the seniority list of
Beat Forest Officers in High Range Forest Circle, Kottayam.
v) Declare that the specially recruited /supernumerary
candidates from scheduled tribes are not entitled for
seniority above the regularly recruited Forest Guards/ Beat
Forest Officers in service."
OP(KAT)Nos.258 and 351 of 2015
and 431 of 2018 2025:KER:82651
2.5. By the impugned order dated 19.09.2018, which is under
challenge in this original petition, the Tribunal dismissed the
original application, in view of the order passed in
O.A.(EKM)No.588 of 2015 and also noting the fact that the
Tribunal subsequently dismissed another original application
preferred by similarly situated Beat Forest Officers as well as
Welfare Association of Beat Forest Officers as per the order dated
20.08.2018 in O.A.No.1589 of 2018. The Tribunal has also noted
that Annexure A16 communication dated 24.03.2018 has been
withdrawn by the 1st respondent by a further communication dated
13.07.2018.
3. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in
O.P.(KAT) Nos.258 and 351 of 2015, the learned counsel for the
petitioners in O.P.(KAT) No.431 of 2018, the learned Senior
Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3 in O.P.(KAT) No.258
of 2015, the respondents in O.P.(KAT) No.351 of 2015 and
respondents 1 to 4 in O.P.(KAT) No.431 of 2018 and also the
learned Senior Counsel for respondents 5 to 29 in O.P.(KAT)
No.431 of 2018.
OP(KAT)Nos.258 and 351 of 2015
and 431 of 2018 2025:KER:82651
4. The grievance of the petitioners is that the Tribunal
passed the impugned orders on the sole ground of delay and
latches without considering the merits of the contentions raised
by the petitioners in their proper perspective. The promotion
chances of the petitioners to higher posts are being adversely
affected or curtailed by the special recruitment undertaken by the
respondents. Annexure A6 seniority list was never circulated
among the petitioners, being the field staff. Therefore, no delay
can be attributed on the petitioners to challenge the same from
the date of its publication by applying Rule 27B of KS & SSR.
5. On the other hand, the learned Senior Government
Pleader relied on the judgment of this Court in State of Kerala v.
Sivadas [1979 KLT 678] to argue that the power of making
special recruitment under Rule 17A of KS & SSR is separate from
and independent of the power of reservation conceded under Rule
14. The non-obstante clause of Rule 17A permits a special
recruitment for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes despite
anything contained in Rule 14 or elsewhere in the Rules. The
learned Senior Government Pleader and the learned Senior
Counsel for respondents 5 to 29 in OP(KAT)No.431 of 2018
OP(KAT)Nos.258 and 351 of 2015
and 431 of 2018 2025:KER:82651
supported the impugned orders of the Tribunal.
6. Article 227 of the Constitution of India deals with the
power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court. Under
clause (1) of Article 227 of the Constitution, every High Court shall
have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the
territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.
7. In Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil
[(2010) 8 SCC 329] the Apex Court, while analysing the scope
and ambit of the power of superintendence under Article 227 of
the Constitution, held that the object of superintendence, both
administrative and judicial, is to maintain efficiency, smooth and
orderly functioning of the entire machinery of justice in such a way
as it does not bring it into any disrepute. The power of interference
under Article 227 is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the
wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice
remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public
confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and courts
subordinate to the High Court.
8. In Jai Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
[(2010) 9 SCC 385], while considering the nature and scope of
OP(KAT)Nos.258 and 351 of 2015
and 431 of 2018 2025:KER:82651
the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Apex
Court held that, undoubtedly the High Court, under Article 227 of
the Constitution, has the jurisdiction to ensure that all subordinate
courts, as well as statutory or quasi-judicial tribunals exercise the
powers vested in them, within the bounds of their authority. The
High Court has the power and the jurisdiction to ensure that they
act in accordance with the well established principles of law. The
exercise of jurisdiction must be within the well recognised
constraints. It cannot be exercised like a 'bull in a china shop', to
correct all errors of the judgment of a court or tribunal, acting
within the limits of its jurisdiction. This correctional jurisdiction can
be exercised in cases where orders have been passed in grave
dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles
of law or justice.
9. In K.V.S. Ram v. Bangalore Metropolitan
Transport Corporation [(2015) 12 SCC 39] the Apex Court
held that, in exercise of the power of superintendence under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court can
interfere with the order of the court or tribunal only when there
has been a patent perversity in the orders of the tribunal and
OP(KAT)Nos.258 and 351 of 2015
and 431 of 2018 2025:KER:82651
courts subordinate to it or where there has been gross and
manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice
have been flouted.
10. In Sobhana Nair K.N. v. Shaji S.G. Nair [2016 (1)
KHC 1] a Division Bench of this Court held that, the law is well
settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court that in
proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this
Court cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the lower
court or tribunal and the jurisdiction of this Court is only
supervisory in nature and not that of an appellate court.
Therefore, no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is
called for, unless this Court finds that the lower court or tribunal
has committed manifest error, or the reasoning is palpably
perverse or patently unreasonable, or the decision of the lower
court or tribunal is in direct conflict with settled principles of law.
11. In view of the law laid down in the decisions referred
to supra, the High Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot sit in appeal
over the findings recorded by a lower court or Tribunal. The
supervisory jurisdiction cannot be exercised to correct all errors of
OP(KAT)Nos.258 and 351 of 2015
and 431 of 2018 2025:KER:82651
the order or judgment of a lower court or tribunal, acting within
the limits of its jurisdiction. The correctional jurisdiction under
Article 227 can be exercised only in a case where the order or
judgment of a lower court or Tribunal has been passed in grave
dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles
of law or justice. Therefore, no interference under Article 227 is
called for, unless the High Court finds that the lower court or
tribunal has committed manifest error, or the reasoning is palpably
perverse or patently unreasonable, or the decision of the lower
court or tribunal is in direct conflict with settled principles of law
or where there has been gross and manifest failure of justice or
the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted.
12. The petitioners are persons advised for appointment as
Forest Guards on various dates, even prior to the advice and
appointments of the Scheduled Tribe members by virtue of a
special recruitment made under Rule 17A of KS & SSR. While
passing Annexure A9 order dated 27.04.2015 in the appeal filed
by the Beat Forest Officers against the seniority list, in pursuance
of the order dated 27.10.2014 of the Tribunal in O.A.No.654 of
2014, the Government has taken into consideration all the
OP(KAT)Nos.258 and 351 of 2015
and 431 of 2018 2025:KER:82651
contentions raised by the petitioners herein. Paragraphs 2, to 6
and 8 of that order read thus:
"2) As directed in the Order read as 3rd paper above, the third
respondent furnished his comments on Annexure MA1-MA5
vide his letter No.E1.9586/14 dated 08.01.2015. The
applicants were heard in Government on 23.03.2015 in the
presence of the concerned officers of the Department. During
the hearing the applicants pointed out that they were
appointed as Beat Forest Officers in the department through
Public Service Commission. In the mean time, Government
took a decision to give appointment to 300 Persons as
Forests Guards from the schedule tribes, in violation of all
the rules and practices. In terms of Rule 14 Part II KS & SSRs
2% of the posts of forest guards are earmarked to the
members of the Scheduled tribe community, 8% to the
scheduled caste community, 40% to the other backward
communities and 50% for open competition. But the 1st
respondent took a decision to recruit 300 Forest guards from
the scheduled tribe communities as per the Government
Order read as 1st paper above. The persons who were
appointed through supernumerary posts were also merged
in the general category in all division of Northern Circle.
3) The 3rd respondent circulated a provisional seniority list
of Forest Guards in the division and in the said list the
applicants were placed below the special recruits though
their appointments were against the posts which were
beyond the sanctioned strength. The petitioners submitted
OP(KAT)Nos.258 and 351 of 2015
and 431 of 2018 2025:KER:82651
their objection to the provisional list. The 3rd respondent did
not take any action and without considering any of the
objections the respondents proceed with the notion that the
special recruits are senior to the applicants and such a list
was prepared. They are also alleged that those adivasis, who
were recruited through Special recruitment as
supernumerary were also placed above to them in the
seniority list. According to them those who were recruited as
supernumerary should be considered for seniority only after
regularising their service. They also alleged that those who
joined for duty even a year latter to them also placed above
to them in the seniority list.
4) The Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest
(Administration) and the Chief Forest Conservator, Northern
Circle stated that in tune with the Government Order read as
1st paper above, 300 Forest Guards were recruited through
the Kerala Public Service Commission from the adivasies with
the object to make use of their knowledge in the Forest
protection activities. As per the Order No.E1- 6232/07 dated
28.01.2010 of the Chief Forest Conservator, Northern Circle,
Seniority list of the Beat Forest Officers was published
providing sufficient opportunity for making appeals. After
considering the appeals, the seniority list was rearranged on
30.06.2011 with the opportunity for appeal. The final
seniority list was published on 21.01.2012. In the seniority
list, the Beat Forest Officers of normal recruitment had also
been combined with the Beat Forest Officers of special
recruitment, according to their seniority as specified in the
OP(KAT)Nos.258 and 351 of 2015
and 431 of 2018 2025:KER:82651
Rule 27 (C) of KS& SSR. Since there were some cases filed
in the Hon'ble court in connection with the Special
recruitment of the adivasis, posting orders were issued by
the appointing authorities after period of one year. At the
same time, when these adivasis got appointment orders,
they joined for duty without delay.
5) Rule 17A of KS&SSR contemplates, Special Recruitment
from among the Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes.
Accordingly the State Government may reserve a specified
number of posts in any service, class, category or grade to
be filled by direct recruitment exclusively from among the
members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
6) Rule 27(e) of KS&SSR stipulates that the seniority of a
person appointed to a. class, category or grade in a service
on the advice of the Commission shall, unless he has been
reduced to a lower rank as punishment, be determined by
the date of first effective advice made for his appointment to
such class, category or grade. Provided that the seniority of
candidates who have been granted extension of time to join
duty beyond three months from the date of the appointment
order. As per the third proviso to Rule 27(c) (e) of Part II,
KS&SSR, where the date of effective advice in respect of a
person appointed otherwise than in pursuance of Rule 17A
and a person appointed in pursuance of Rule 17A is the same.
xxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
8) The Rule 27B stipulates, in case of disputes regarding
seniority and matters connected with by reason of any order
of Government or any order of an authority subordinate to
OP(KAT)Nos.258 and 351 of 2015
and 431 of 2018 2025:KER:82651
Government, representations for reconsideration of such
order shall be submitted to Government by the aggrieved
person within a period of six months from the date of receipt
of the order, or the date of publication of the order in the
Kerala Gazette, whichever is later. Here the main prayer of
the applicants is to set aside Annexure A3 seniority list.
Annexure A3 is published on 21.01.2012 and the MAI to MAS
are dated on 28.03.2014".
13. From the reading of Annexure A9 order, it is clear that
none of the petitioners challenged the seniority list within time as
stipulated in Rule 27B of the KS & SSR Part II.
14. In Sivadas [1979 KLT 678], this Court held thus:
"3. We are afraid we cannot accept the reasoning of the
learned Judge. As we see the position, the power of making
special recruitment under R.17A is separate from, and
independent of, the power of reservation conceded under
R.14 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules.
Under R.14 reservation up to a total of 10% (8%-1-2%) for
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes is permitted. The
non obstante clause of R.17A permits a special recruitment
for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes despite anything
contained in R.14 or elsewhere in the Rules. It is in
pursuance of the power under this Rule that Ext. P2 order
was issued. Sub-paragraph 2 of Clause (2) thereof is the
relevant provision. It directed a special recruitment to 5%
of the non gazetted posts in each Department. The proviso
OP(KAT)Nos.258 and 351 of 2015
and 431 of 2018 2025:KER:82651
took care to state that as a result of such special recruitment
to 5% of the non gazetted posts, the total number of
scheduled castes and scheduled tribes was not to, exceed
the upper limit of 10% fixed under the Rule viz., R.14. This,
we understand to be the meaning and the purport of the
above paragraph of Ext. P2. In that view, we do not think
that it, in any way conflicts with the provisions of the Rules
or violates the limit set by R.14 or R.17A. The learned Judge,
in our view, was wrong in holding that Ext. P1 notification
travels beyond the Rules. We allow this writ appeal and set
aside the judgment of the learned Judge and direct that O.
P. No. 5249 of 1976 will stand dismissed. There will be no
order as to costs." (Underline supplied)
15. From the dictum laid down in Sivadas [1979 KLT
678] it is clear that the power of making special recruitment under
Rule 17A is separate from and independent of the power of
reservation conceded under Rule 14 of the KS & SSR. The non-
obstante clause of Rule 17A permits special recruitment for
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes despite anything
contained in Rule 14 or elsewhere in the Rules. Therefore, the
contentions raised by the petitioners will not sustain. Moreover,
as rightly found by the Tribunal, the petitioners approached the
Tribunal in a highly belated stage.
Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and
OP(KAT)Nos.258 and 351 of 2015
and 431 of 2018 2025:KER:82651
the submissions made at the Bar, we find no ground to hold that
the impugned orders are perverse or illegal, which warrants the
interference of this Court by exercising supervisory jurisdiction
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
In the result, the original petitions stand dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
sks MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
OP(KAT)Nos.258 and 351 of 2015
and 431 of 2018 2025:KER:82651
APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 258/2015
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.NO.588/2015 FILED BEFORE
THE HON'BLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF STRENGTH OF VARIOUS
CADRE POSTS AS SANCTIONED IN KANNUR CIRCLE
ON 31.3.2012.
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS) NO.68/01/FOREST DATED
17.11.2001.
ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS) NO.77/2001/FOREST DATED
28.12.2001.
ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF LETTER ISSUED BY THE CHIEF
CONSERVATOR OF FOREST DATED 2.5.2003.
ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE 6TH
APPLICANT DATED 29.3.2010.
ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CHIEF
CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, NORTHERN CIRCLE ALONG
WITH THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE SENIORITY LIST
AS PER ORDER NO.E1.6232/11 DATED 21.10.2012.
ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE
6TH APPLICANT DATED 17.9.2014.
ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.10.2014 IN
O.A.NO.654/2014.
ANNEXURE A9 TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT) NO.178/2015/F & WLD
DATED 27.4.2015.
ANNEXURE A10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.EI.969/2002 DATED
22.8.2003 ISSUED BY THE DIVISIONAL FOREST
OFFICER, KANNUR DIVISION.
ANNEXURE A11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.EI.3934/2010 DATED
4.6.2015.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.06.2015 IN
O.A.[EKM]NO.588/2015 OF THE HON'BLE KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.E1.3934/2010 DATED
6.7.2015 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
OP(KAT)Nos.258 and 351 of 2015
and 431 of 2018 2025:KER:82651
APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 351/2015
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE ADVICE MEMO ISSUED BY THE
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION DATED
1.7.2004.
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COY OF OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE IST
APPLICANT THROUGH PROPER CHANNEL DATED
8.10.2013.
ANNEXURE A2A ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF ANNEXURE A2.
ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
6.3.2013.
ANNEXURE A3A ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF ANNEXURE A3.
ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST NO.E-16232/11
DATED 21.1.2012.
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.NO.532/2014 FILED BEFORE
THE HON'BLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4.3.2014 IN
O.A.NO.532/2014.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS) NO.68/2001/FOREST DATED
17.11.2001.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT SHOWING THE STAFF
POSITION AS ON 31.3.2012 IN NORTHERN CIRCLE.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT TO THE CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS OF
ALL THE CIRCLES DATED 2.5.2003.
OP(KAT)Nos.258 and 351 of 2015
and 431 of 2018 2025:KER:82651
APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 431/2018
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION ON
O.A.NO.1734/2018 DATED 8.9.2018
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ORIGINAL APPLICATION
NOI1734/2018 DATED 19.9.2018
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CHIEF
CONSERVATOR OF FOREST KOTTAYAM HIGH RANGE
CIRCLE DATED 7.9.2019.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF RANKED
LIST PUBLISHED BY KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION FOR THE POST OF BEAT FOREST
OFFICER (KOTTAYAM).
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.50/2019 DATED
10.10.2019 ISSUED BY DIVISIONAL FOREST
OFFICER, KOTTAYAM.
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF INFORMATION ISSUED UNDER THE
RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT DATED 31.10.2019.
Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE GO (MS) NO: 68/2001/F & W
DATED 17.11.2001.
Annexure A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF KERALA
GAZETTE WITH RESPECT TO CATEGORY 14/2002.
Annexure A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE GO (RT) NO. 190/2003/F&WLD
DATED 24.04.2003.
Annexure A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF CHIEF
CONSERVATOR OF FOREST KOTTAYAM DATED
30.03.2013 ALONG WITH RELEVANT PAGES OF
SENIORITY LIST OF BEAT FOREST OFFICERS OF
HIGH RANGE CIRCLE.
Annexure A5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
01.05.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD APPLICANT TO
THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Annexure A6 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
19.12.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE 7TH APPLICANT TO
THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Annexure A7 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
17.06.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE 12TH APPLICANT
TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Annexure A8 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
08.10.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE 14TH APPLICANT
TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Annexure A9 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
25.10.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE 16TH APPLICANT
OP(KAT)Nos.258 and 351 of 2015
and 431 of 2018 2025:KER:82651
TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Annexure A10 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
06.11.2017 SUBMITTED BY K.K. PRAMOD TO THE
4TH RESPONDENT.
Annexure A11 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
09.04.2018 SUBMITTED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Annexure A12 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF ADDITIONAL
PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST
(ADMINISTRATION) DATED 16.01.2018.
Annexure A13 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED
TO THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FOREST & WILD
LIFE DEPARTMENT DATED 04.08.2018.
Annexure A14 A TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION ISSUED TO
CHRISTO JOSEPH BY THE STATE PUBLIC
INFORMATION OFFICER AND DFO KOTTAYAM DATED
30.07.2018.
Annexure A15 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE
CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST NORTHERN CIRCLE
KANNUR TO THE ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL CHIEF
CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (ADMINISTRATION) DATED
04.11.2017.
Annexure A16 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FOREST & WILD LIFE
DEPARTMENT TO THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF
CONSERVATOR OF FOREST DATED 24.03.2018.
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R27(a) The copy of the order issued by the 4th
respondent dated 11.07.2024
EXHIBIT R27(b) The order dated 02.06.2003
