AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Antony Dominic, J.—Ext.P9 order to the extent the petitioners are shown as Assistant Commandants on supernumerary basis in the Armed Police Battalion is under challenge.
Short facts are that by Exts.P1 & P2 orders issued by the 1st respondent, the petitioners were promoted as Assistant Commandants on supernumerary basis invoking Rule 39 of the General Rules. While continuing as such, complaining of delay in the matter of regularisation in the services, they approached this Court in O.P. No. 6668/1996. That Original Petition was disposed of by Ext.P3 judgment dated 17/02/2003 directing that appointments and promotions of the petitioners be regularised.
Meanwhile, Exts.P1 & P2 orders were challenged before this Court in O.P. Nos. 19716/1995 and 3750/1994. Those Original Petitions were dismissed by Exts.P4 & P5 judgments upholding Exts.P1 & P2. Subsequently, in compliance with the directions in Ext.P3 judgment, promotion of the petitioners was regularised by Ext.P6 order dated 21/03/2005 Accordingly, they continued in service, their probation was declared and higher grade was also granted.
Still later, Government of Kerala issued Ext.P9 order dated 23/06/2007 proposing to treat the petitioners as Assistant Commandants on supernumerary basis. It is on the issuance of Ext.P9, this Writ Petition was filed challenging the proposal to treat them on supernumerary basis.
Another colleague of the petitioners'', who was also proposed to be shown as supernumerary in a provisional seniority list, approached this Court in WP(C) No. 9039/2009. That Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court by judgment dated 17/06/2010. In that judgment, mainly for the reason that the judgment secured by the petitioner therein upholding orders appointing, promoting and regularising him had become final, this Court held that the Government could not have treated the his post as a supernumerary one.
The reasoning adopted by this Court for sustaining the challenge in WP(C) No. 9039/2009, applies with all force to this case also. Therefore, for the reason as assigned in the judgment in WP(C) No. 9039/2009, this writ petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, Ext.P9 to the extent it proposes to treat the petitioners as supernumerary Assistant Commandants cannot be sustained and is set aside. The petitioners will be entitled to pay consequential benefits.
This writ petition is allowed as above.