[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Rajiv Jayaraj vs State Of Kerala on 27 February, 2026
WA NO.1639/2024 1
2026:KER:17588
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 8TH PHALGUNA, 1947
WA NO. 1639 OF 2024
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.09.2024 IN WP(C)
NO.3080/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN WP(C):
RAJIV JAYARAJ,
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O.LATE R.J. MENON, CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
KOTTAYAM, PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT LATHA REMAM,
NEAR HEAD POST OFFICE, PUTHUR ROAD,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001
BY ADVS.
SMT.LAKSHMI RAMADAS
SRI.P.RAVINDRAN (SR.)
SRI.M.R.SABU
SMT.APARNA RAJAN
SRI.SREEDHAR RAVINDRAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN WP(C):
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL,
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
WA NO.1639/2024 2
2026:KER:17588
3 REGISTRAR GENERAL,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
4 REGISTRAR (SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY),
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
5 IJAS A.,
ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE-II/ADDITIONAL MOTOR
ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690101
6 MALLIKA A.S.,
ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE-VII/ADDITIONAL MOTOR
ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695035
7 LILLY K.,
JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673004
8 BHARATI S.,
ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE-IV/ADDITIONAL MOTOR
ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
9 VIDHYADHARAN V.S.,
PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020
10 ELSAMMA JOSEPH P.,
ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE-III/ADDITIONAL MOTOR
ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THODUPUZHA,
IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685587
11 SAJIKUMAR S.,
UNIVERSITY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL/ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
JUDGE-III, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695035
12 MADHU K.S.,
SPECIAL JUDGE FOR THE TRIAL OF SC/ST(POA) ACT
CASES, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 686019
13 BASHEER A.M.,
PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT,
KOLLAM, PIN - 691013
WA NO.1639/2024 3
2026:KER:17588
14 SHIJU SHEIK,
ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE-IV/ADDITIONAL MOTOR
ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695035
15 RADHAKRISHNAN S.,
ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE-IV/ADDITIONAL MOTOR
ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PATHANAMTHITTA,
PIN - 689645
16 SEENA S.S.,
JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKKUDA,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680125
17 SUDEEP S.,
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
THODUPUZHA, PIN - 685584
18 SREE RAJ S.,
SPECIAL JUDGE, FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT,
KARUNAGAPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690518
19 SATHISHKUMAR A.G.,
SPECIAL JUDGE, FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT,
PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 685303
20 PHILIP THOMAS,
SPECIAL JUDGE, FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT,
KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685515
21 SYAMLAL S.R.,
SPECIAL JUDGE, FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673004
22 JAYARAJ M.P.,
SPECIAL JUDGE, FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT,
KALPETTA, WYANAD DISTRICT, PIN - 673122
23 SURESH BABU V.P.M.,
MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, VADAKARA,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673104
24 JAYAKRISHNAN G.P.,
SPECIAL JUDGE, FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT,
CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686103
WA NO.1639/2024 4
2026:KER:17588
25 MUJEEB RAHIMAN C.,
SPECIAL JUDGE, FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT,
TALIPARAMBA, KASARGODE DISTRICT, PIN - 671123
26 THANKACHAN K.P.,
MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY,
KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670101
27 GOSHA C.G.,
SPECIAL JUDGE, FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT,
THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670101
28 SALEENA V.G. NAIR,
SPECIAL JUDGE, FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT, HARIPAD,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690514
29 ANIL T.P.,
SPECIAL JUDGE, FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT,
KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673305
30 SATHEESHKUMAR V.,
SPECIAL JUDGE, FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT,
PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683542
31 PRABHASH LAL T.P.,
SPECIAL JUDGE, FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT,
ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 695035
32 TITTY GEORGE,
SPECIAL JUDGE, FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686002
33 ANILKUMAR K.P.,
SPECIAL JUDGE, FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT,
PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679322
34 HARIKUMAR K.N.,
SPECIAL JUDGE, FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT,
PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689045
35 PRIYA CHAND P.P.,
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-VI,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682011
WA NO.1639/2024 5
2026:KER:17588
36 THUSHAR M.,
DISTRICT JUDGE-II/ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY,
KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670101
37 SHIBU M.P.,
SPECIAL JUDGE, FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT,
KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680503
38 D.SUDHEER DAVID,
SUB JUDGE, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 689121
39 PRAKASHAN P.T.,
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
40 JAYAKRISHNAN R.,
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
THIRUVNANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695035
41 POOJA P.P.,
SUB JUDGE, PUNALUR, KOLLAM, PIN - 691331
42 SURESH KUMAR C (JR.),
SECRETARY, DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY,
PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689645
43 BILKUL G.R.,
SECRETARY, DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY,
PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689645
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.R.GANESH, R2 TO R4
SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEWS, R5
SRI.MATHEWS PHILIP V.
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN E.
SMT.ATHULYA SEBASTIAN
SRI.K.P.HARISH, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
27.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WA NO.1639/2024 6
2026:KER:17588
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 27th day of February, 2026
Syam Kumar V.M., J.
The Writ Appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated
04.09.2024 of the learned Single Judge arising in W.P.(C) No.3080
of 2021. Appellant was the petitioner in the W.P.(C).
2. The W.P.(C) was filed by the appellant, contending that
despite being entitled to promotion to the cadre of District and
Sessions Judge with effect from the relevant due date, respondents
2 to 4 had failed and refused to grant such promotion to restore his
seniority over respondents 5 to 43. The following prayers were
sought in the W.P.(C) :
"a. issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ order or
direction quashing Exhibits P15 and P18 ;
b. issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ order or
direction quashing Exhibits P16 and P22 to the extend they
supersede the petitioner ;
c. issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ order or
direction calling for the records leading to Exhibit P27 and
quash the same to the extend it refuses to restore the
seniority of the petitioner by considering and granting him
promotion to the category of Sub Judge/Chief Judicial
Magistrate with effect from 12.03.2014 with all consequential
benefits ;
2026:KER:17588
d. to declare that the petitioner is entitled to be promoted as
Sub Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate with effect from
12.03.2014 on substantial basis and to be assigned seniority
above all personnel who were juniors to him in the feeder
category with all consequential benefits including arrears of
pay and allowances, and to issue a writ of mandamus or
other appropriate writ order or direction commanding
respondents 1-4 to consider the petitioner accordingly and to
grant him due promotion and seniority with all consequential
benefits ;
e. grant such other relief as may be prayed for at the time of
hearing and as this Honourable Court may deem fit to grant
in the facts and circumstances of the case ;
and
f. grant costs of this Writ petition."
3. The learned Single Judge dismissed the W.P.(C) inter alia
holding that the Administrative Committee of the High Court had
evaluated the judgments of the appellant along with the Annual
Confidential Report (ACR) and the opinions of the Judges in charge
of the District and had come to the definite conclusion that the
appellant is not eligible to be promoted to the cadre of Sub
Judge/CJM on a regular basis and the finding so had been reverted
to the cadre of the Munsiff Magistrate. It was concluded by the
learned Single Judge that the said decision not to promote the
appellant on a regular basis, as per Exhibit P15, was based on an
2026:KER:17588
objective evaluation of the judgments rendered by the appellant
while he was promoted temporarily as a Sub Judge and the
Administrative Committee's wisdom in evaluating the judgments
authored by the appellant cannot be substituted by the court. After a
detailed appreciation of the contentions put forth, the learned Single
Judge dismissed the W.P.(C), holding that the appellant was not
entitled to any of the reliefs sought for. Aggrieved by the said
judgment, this Writ Appeal has been preferred.
4. Heard Sri.P.Ravindran, Senior Advocate, instructed by
Alina Anna Kose, Advocate for the appellant, Sri.K.R.Ganesh,
Advocate for respondents 2, 3 and 4, Sri.K.P.Harish, learned Senior
Government Pleader appearing for the 1 st respondent State,
Sri.Philip Mathews, Advocate for respondent No.5.
5. Appellant's contentions could be summarised as follows:
● The learned Single Judge had failed to appreciate that
the Administrative Committee had concluded that the
deferment of the promotion of the appellant was not legal
and that the decision to review the earlier orders was
accordingly taken. If so, the appellant ought to have
been restored to his original position and granted
2026:KER:17588
benefits that would duly follow. Failure to do the same, it
is submitted, is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India.
● The learned Single Judge overlooked the fact that the
orders impugned in the W.P.(C) suffered from the vice of
being non-speaking. Restoration of seniority had been
found to be warranted, and insofar as the appellant was
restored with his seniority by giving notional seniority in
the cadre of Sub Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate.
Immediately, the above officers were given regular
promotion on or after 01.04.2016. It is submitted that
when an order of the authority has no reasons reflected
in it, the same cannot be supplied by subsequent
affidavits. Reliance is placed on the dictum laid down in
Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner
[AIR 1978 SC 851].
● Exhibit P8 order issued in reply to Exhibit P7
representation preferred by the appellant was not a
speaking order. The learned Single Judge had erred in
overlooking the fact that Exhibit P8 and Exhibit P27 were
2026:KER:17588
issued without stating any reason and are hence
violative of Article 14.
● Appellant was given only temporary promotion though
the vacancies for which he sought promotion were
substantive. The circumstances mandatory for making
temporary promotion, were not available at the relevant
time under the relevant rules. The appellant ought to
have been considered for regular promotion based on its
merit and ability as reflected in the judgments forwarded
pursuant to Exhibits P7 and P8.
● The styling of the promotion of the appellant as a
temporary while it had all the necessary basics in the
regular permanent promotion is illegal. This was
overlooked by the learned Single Judge. Regular
promotion ought to have been granted to the appellant
on the same date of the so-called temporary promotion.
Refusal to do so was arbitrary and violative of Article 14
of the Constitution.
● The performance of the Judicial Officers as prescribed in
Exhibit P5 specifies a method of evaluation of
2026:KER:17588
judgments. The judgments which ought to have been
evaluated were the judgments rendered by the appellant
while as a Munsiff. However, regular promotion was
based on the judgments in the category of Subordinate
Judge/CJM which were pronounced by the appellant
while he was given temporary promotion. The learned
Single Judge had failed to take note of the illegality
involved in the above respect and the non compliance
with the mandates of Exhibit P5. The evaluation of the
judgments made was not in accordance with the
mandates in Exhibit P5 and is not a speaking evaluation.
● The order reverting the appellant had relied on the
observations in the confidential reports of the appellant.
In so far as the adverse entries in the confidential
reports of the appellant had been quashed and in the
Writ Appeal, and as it had been held that the same
cannot form any basis of denying any benefit due to the
appellant, there was no just or valid reason to rely on the
adverse entries in the ACRs of the appellant and hence
Exhibit P15 decision had been arrived at based on
2026:KER:17588
irrelevant considerations.
● There was no just or valid reason to supersede the
appellant for the promotion as Sub Judge/CJM and no
reasonable person would have come to such a
conclusion that the appellant was not having merit and
ability equal to that of its contemporaries and juniors who
were promoted to the category of Sub Judge/CJM while
the appellant was reverted. The impugned actions are
hence illegal, unjust and arbitrary.
● Appellant was discriminated against in so far as he was
not given an opportunity of another chance in improving
this performance. Exhibit P8 order to the extent that it
overlooks the fact that the appellant had not been given
an opportunity and does not consider any of the issues
raised in Exhibit P17 is one rendered without proper
application of mind and is discriminatory.
● The decision to restore the seniority of the appellant only
from 01.04.2016 instead of 12.03.2014 as sought by the
appellant has no justifiable reason. The Special
Committee which considered the matter had found that
2026:KER:17588
the reversion of the appellant was unsustainable and
hence restoration ought to have been granted to him
from the date on which the appellant was given regular
promotion. When a mistake is sought to be corrected, it
is necessary to restore the personnel to the position
where he would have been given had the mistake not
crept in.
● The choice of the date 01.04.2016 has no rationale
whatsoever. The delay, if any, in decisions relating to
regularisation was not due to the fault of the appellant
and the appellant ought not be prejudiced or
detrimentally affected by such actions of the High Court.
The appellant ought to have been promoted to the
category of Sub Judge/CJM from the date of promotion
of his juniors who were promoted ahead of him with all
consequential benefits.
● While restoring the seniority of the appellant, the date of
promotion given to the appellant originally had been
changed and such change is illegal. Restoring seniority
is based on the fact that the earlier reversion was illegal.
2026:KER:17588
The said aspect had been overlooked by the learned
Single Judge. Reliance is placed on the dictum laid
down in SN College v. Raveendran [2004 (1) KLT 971].
● Since the judgments submitted by the appellant in 2013
were in fact evaluated, a further evaluation of the
judgments in 2016 was not warranted.
● There is no provision for temporary appointees to be
regarded as probationers as per Rule 9(2) of the Kerala
Judicial Service Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as
'the Rules of 1991' and there is no provision for
regularisation of temporary appointees.
● Appellant was given regular promotion in 2019 with
effect from 01.04.2016 on the basis of 2018 judgments
as Munsiff. The first promotion itself was as per the
Rules and there was no just or fair reason to treat it as a
temporary promotion.
● The learned Single Judge had erroneously proceeded on
the assumption that it was the Administrative Committee
which had evaluated the judgments and that the learned
Single Judge cannot substitute the Administrative
2026:KER:17588
Committee's wisdom.
● The learned Single Judge ought to have noted that the
appellant was the only officer who was reverted on the
ground of evaluation of judgments and there was no
justification for not regularising the appellant from
12.03.2014.
● The finding of the learned Single Judge that a lenient
view had been taken in the matter of the appellant and
the date had been re-fixed as 01.04.2016 and such fixing
of dates cannot be termed as arbitrary and illegal is
incorrect. The learned Single Judge failed to appreciate
that lenient view was taken by the High Court to other
officers without affecting their seniority.
● The discrimination faced by the appellant had been
overlooked by the learned Single is fit to be set aside.
6. Contentions of respondents 2, 3 and 4 in brief are as follows:
● The impugned judgment has been rendered in accordance
with law and does not merit any interference.
● Appellant had not challenged Exhibit P10 whereby he was
temporarily promoted as Sub Judge along with others, after
2026:KER:17588
specifically noting that such promotion granted was temporary
till their promotions are regularised by the High Court later. In
view of the same, the contentions now seen put forth that his
promotion was permanent and regular and not temporary
cannot be sustained
● Rule 5(2) of the Rules of 1991 regarding appointment
specifically provide that merit and ability shall be assessed
with reference to the entries in the personal files relating to the
officers, penalties, if any, imposed on them, their performance
as judicial officers, and other relevant considerations.
● It is settled as per the Rules of 1991 that seniority shall be the
criterion only if merit and ability are found to be equal.
● Exhibit P10 promoting the appellant and others was issued in
view of an exigency, and since the same had to be done
without complying with the mandate of Rule 5 (2) of the Rules
of 1991, the same was clarified that the promotion is
temporary and subject to regularisation.
● By Exhibit P15, the appellant had been communicated that the
temporary promotion granted to the appellant stood cancelled
and he was reverted to the cadre of Munsiff Magistrate since
2026:KER:17588
the objective valuation of the judgments rendered by him as
well as the annual confidential report had led the High Court to
decide accordingly. The said decision was validly arrived at as
empowered under the relevant provisions of law and was
unassailable.
● Appellant was given seniority immediately above all the
officers who were given regular promotion on 01.04.2016. The
said decision was recommended by the Administrative
Committee. Meeting held on 17.03.2020, the committee had
considered the recommendations of the subcommittee
appointed in this regard by the then Hon'ble Chief Justice on
consideration of the representations submitted by the
appellant.
● The Administrative Committee meeting held on 17.03.2020
had resolved so, since there had been inordinate delay in
taking a decision on regularisation and consequently many
junior officers had superseded the appellant. So it was decided
that he be given seniority immediately above all the officers
who were so given regular promotion on 01.04.2016. The Full
Court meeting held on 17.06.2020, after due deliberation,
2026:KER:17588
resolved to give notional seniority to the appellant without
entitlement to monetary benefits and placed him higher in the
seniority list.
● The learned Single Judge had rightly concluded that the
Administrative Committee had taken note of the inordinate
delay that had happened in deciding on regularisation, and
also the fact that so many juniors got promoted and
superseded the appellant, had taken a lenient view to give
seniority immediately above all officers who were promoted on
or after 01.04.2016.
● The finding of the learned Single Judge is that the appellant
cannot aspire the date of fixing his seniority as 12.03.2014
because Exhibit P27 decision had been arrived at after
evaluation of the judgments ordered by him and submitted
pursuant to Exhibit P21 is valid, proper and supported by
reasoning.
● The Administrative Committee of the High Court had evaluated
the subsequent judgments received pursuant to Exhibit P21
while the appellant was serving as Principal Munsiff
Thiruvananthapuram and had formed the opinion that the
2026:KER:17588
appellant is entitled to be promoted and Exhibit P27 was
passed promoting the appellant fixing the seniority in the cadre
of subject/CJM as of 01.04.2016.
● The contention of the appellant that there had been
discrimination against him insofar as judgments of certain
other officers had been found unfit but were reconsidered after
a fresh evaluation after granting them another opportunity to
submit another set of judgments, which were then evaluated,
and the concerned officers granted promotion is untrue,
baseless and misleading. No such opportunity as alleged had
been granted, calling for fresh judgments. So the allegation of
discrimination put forth in the said count is unsustainable.
● In view of the above, the contentions put forth in the Writ
Appeal are devoid of merit and the Writ Appeal is only to be
dismissed.
7. We have heard both sides in detail and have considered
the contentions put forth.
8. The issue that arises for consideration in this writ appeal is
whether the learned Single Judge had committed an error while
determining the question regarding the effective date of the
2026:KER:17588
appellant's regular promotion under Exhibit P27, ie., whether it
should be reckoned as 12.03.2014 or as 01.04.2016.
9. The principal contention that has been put forth by the
appellant is that the Administrative Committee had concluded that
the deferment of promotion of the appellant had not been legal and
had decided to review the earlier orders. On the said premise, it is
contended that the appellant ought to have been restored to his
original position and granted the benefits as if 'the right thing was
done at the right time'. The learned Single Judge, it is contended,
failed to appreciate the said aspect, resulting in the dismissal of the
W.P(C). The appellant's contention requires closer scrutiny.
10. It is undisputed that, by virtue of Exhibit P27, the
appellant's seniority was restored by granting him notional seniority
in the cadre of Sub Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, placing him
immediately above those officers who were granted regular
promotion on or after 01.04.2016. This buttresses the appellant's
contention that restoration of seniority was justified and had, in fact,
been decided in his favour. As a natural corollary to the above, and
a consequence flowing therefrom, the appellant had specifically
sought restoration of his seniority in accordance with his position in
2026:KER:17588
Exhibit P1, the seniority list of Munsiff-Magistrates.
11. As regards the adverse entries against the appellant in the
ACR, it is pertinent to note that, at the time Exhibit P15 was issued,
the adverse entries in the appellant's confidential reports had
already been set aside. It had also been held in the writ appeal that
followed that those entries could not be relied upon as a basis for
denying any benefits due to the appellant. This lends considerable
support to the contention of the appellant that there was no
justifiable reason to place reliance on any adverse entries in the
appellant's ACR. In this context, it would be apposite to reproduce
the relevant rule of the Rules of 1991 regarding appointment, which
is relevant to the dispute at hand. Rule 5 (2) of the Rules of 1991
reads as follows:
"Promotion to category 1 shall be made from a select list
prepared by the High Court from among the eligible officers on
the basis of merit and ability. Merit and ability shall be assessed
with reference to the entries in the personal files relating to the
officers, penalties if any imposed on them, their performance as
judicial officers, and other relevant considerations. Seniority
shall be the criterion only if merit and ability are found to be
equal. Officers superseded shall be informed of their
supersession, with reasons therefore. They shall be considered
for promotion again after the expiry of 6 months." [Emphasis
added]
It follows from the above that eligibility for inclusion on the select list
prepared by the High Court is determined by merit and ability.
2026:KER:17588
Assessment of merit and ability is undertaken with due regard to
relevant factors, including entries in the personal/service records
and officers' performance in their judicial functions. The Rule
specifies that seniority shall operate as a criterion only when merit
and ability are found to be equal. Once the adverse entries had
been set aside, the ineligibility on the said count ought to have
ended there.
12. It is also relevant to note that the appellant's reversion was
found to be unsustainable by the Special Committee after due
consideration. This, in our view, is also a significant aspect that must
be taken into account. Once the reversion was held to be
unsustainable, there is merit in the appellant's contention that he
ought to have been restored to service with effect from the date on
which regular promotion was originally granted. It is trite that when
an error is identified and sought to be rectified, the individual
concerned must be placed in the same position he would have
occupied had the correct decision been made at the appropriate
time. The reasoning that the retrospective effect was denied due to
delays in decisions on regularisation cannot be considered valid or
tenable. A delay occasioned in the evaluation of judgments
2026:KER:17588
constitutes an insufficient ground to withhold benefits that are
otherwise rightfully due to the appellant.
13. Much contention has been put forth regarding the fixation
of 01.04.2016 as the operative date. While the appellant, on the one
hand, contends that no valid rationale or sustainable reasoning had
been assigned for selecting the said date, in response, it is
submitted that, having adopted a lenient approach, the
determination of 01.04.2016 cannot be held to be arbitrary,
capricious, or otherwise impermissible in law. We have perused the
documents produced so as to ascertain the reason for assigning the
date of 01.04.2016. In this context, we deem it relevant to reproduce
here the minutes of the Full Court meeting held on 17.06.2020. It
reads as follows:
"After considering the minutes of subcommittee constituted to
consider the representation of Sree Rajeev Jayaraj to restore
his seniority in the cadre of Sub-Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate
and Resolution of the Administrative Committee on 17.03.2020.
The full court resolved to review the full court decision on
12.04.2018 and to approve the recommendation of the
administrative committee on 17.03.2020 that Sree Rajiv Jayaraj
be given seniority immediately above all officers who were given
regular promotion on or after 01.04.2016. The full court
accordingly resolved to give notional seniority to Rajeev Jayaraj
without entitlements to monetary benefits and to place him in
the seniority list above Sree Dinesh C.R. Judge, Kozhikode.
Let follow-up action be taken by the Registry."
14. Proceeding to examine the appellant's contention that
restoring his seniority to 01.04.2016 instead of 12.03.2014, as
2026:KER:17588
claimed by him, lacks any justifiable basis, we note that the
appellant's supersession had already been held to be unsustainable
by the Special Committee that had reviewed the matter. Once the
supersession was determined to be unsustainable, we are of the
definite conclusion that the restoration should have taken effect from
the date on which the appellant would otherwise have been granted
regular promotion. We find merit in the contention that the selection
of the date 01.04.2016 is unsupported by any rationale. It is relevant
to note that while restoring the appellant's seniority, the originally
assigned date of promotion has not been altered. The restoration is
premised on the finding that the earlier supersession was unlawful.
Consequently, the appellant ought to be promoted to the cadre of
Sub Judge/CJM from the date on which his juniors who had been
promoted ahead of him were elevated, together with all
consequential benefits. The above aspects, which we note are
relevant, had not been considered by the learned Single Judge.
15. We hereby set aside the judgment of the learned Single
Judge and declare that the appellant is entitled to be promoted as
Sub-Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate with effect from 12.03.2014 on
a notional basis and is entitled to be assigned seniority accordingly.
2026:KER:17588
In view of the above, the appellant would also be entitled for being
promoted as and when it became due as well as appropriate
seniority. Exhibits P16 and P22 shall stand modified to the above
extent and rest of the said orders shall remain intact.
The Writ Appeal is allowed to the extent as indicated herein
above. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
JUDGE
Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M.
JUDGE
csl
2026:KER:17588
APPENDIX OF WA NO.1639 OF 2024
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
09.09.2024
Annexure A2 A TRUE COPY JUDGMENT DATED 02.04.2019
Annexure A3 A TRUE COPY OF GOVERNMENT CIRCULAR NO.
5328/RULES-1/99/P&ARD DATED 03.06.1999
Annexure A4 A TRUE COPY OF QUERY UNDER RTI DATED
07.07.2020
Annexure A5 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.B4-57355/2012
DATED 29.04.2013
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE R2 (a) True copy of the full Court minutes
dated 12.04.2018
ANNEXURE R2 (b) True copy of the full Court minutes
dated 12.04.2019
ANNEXURE R2 (c) True copy of the Administrative
Committee Minutes dated 17.03.2020
ANNEXURE R2 (d) True copy of the full Court minutes
dated 17.06.2020
