P.D. Thankamani, Upper Division Clerk vs State of Kerala and Others

K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.—The writ petitioner is the appellant. The writ petition was filed by her, challenging Ext.P8 order, as per which Ext.P6 representation filed by her was rejected. In Ext.P6, she raised two claims. The first claim was for retrospective promotion to the post of Upper Division Clerk. She was actually promoted as U.D. Clerk only on 8.8.2006, with effect from 17.6.2006. If a proper seniority list of L.D. Clerks was prepared, she claimed, she was entitled to get promotion earlier. The second ground raised in Ext.P6 was against the proposal to deploy her to the Local Self Government Department. According to her, since several juniors are available, it is not just or proper to deploy her without deploying those juniors. Both those contentions were rejected by the Chief Engineer of the Public Works Department, by Ext.P8. Challenging Ext.P8, the writ petition was filed.

The learned Single Judge declined to interfere with Ext.P8. But regarding her grievance on the non-finalization of the seniority list of U.D. Clerks, she was given opportunity to pursue her claim. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, this writ appeal is preferred.

We heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. Since the appellant was given opportunity to pursue her claim regarding seniority, we need not go into that at this stage. Regarding deployment, the grievance of the appellant is that the seniority rule has been violated. The competent authority has consistently found that the deployment was made strictly according to the seniority. It is a finding of fact, with which we cannot interfere. But the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Public Service Commission has invited applications for appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk in the P.W.D. recently. That means there are several vacancies. The point that arises for consideration in this case is whether the deployment of the appellant/ petitioner proposed in 2002 was correct or not. At that time, she was a junior hand. She has got delayed the deployment by taking recourse to the proceedings before this Court and also filing representations before the superior authorities. So, the present situation cannot be a ground to hold that her deployment in 2002 was bad for violating the seniority rule.

In the result, the writ appeal fails and it is dismissed.