G. Babu & Ors. Vs. State of Kerala & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 2564-2566 of 1997
With (C.A.Nos. 3582-3587/97, W.P.(C) Nos. 805/96 and 327/97)
With (C.A.Nos. 3582-3587/97, W.P.(C) Nos. 805/96 and 327/97)
Petitioner: G. Babu & Ors.
Respondent: State of Kerala & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 2564-2566 of 1997
With (C.A.Nos. 3582-3587/97, W.P.(C) Nos. 805/96 and 327/97)
With (C.A.Nos. 3582-3587/97, W.P.(C) Nos. 805/96 and 327/97)
Judges: G.B. PATTANAIK & B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Nov 16, 2000
Head Note:
SERVICE AND LABOUR LAWS
Constitution
Articles 226, 14 – Seniority – List of Excise Inspectors drawn – Feeder cadre comprising of direct recruit Preventive Officers and Promotee Preventive Officers – Seniority drawn on basis of various Government Orders – Said list forming basis of promotion to Circle Inspectors and still higher posts – List drawn on basis of some of the principles enunciated by Supreme Court – No provision in any Government Order to the contrary. Held that seniority list, as upheld by High Court cannot be interfered with. Writ petitions by promotees and direct recruits against decision of Government, subsequent to High Court judgment not entertained. Appeals dismissed. (Paras 1,2)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. These appeals and the two writ petitions have been filed by the Direct Recruit Preventive Officers/Promotee Preventive Offic-ers in the Excise Department in the State of Kerala. In the High Court of Kerala several writ petitions had been filed, essential-ly challenging the seniority list of Excise Inspectors which had been drawn up on 31.7.1994. Certain other writ petitions also had been filed for a direction to the Government to convene the Departmental Promotion Committee Meeting for giving promotion to the post of Excise Inspector. The post of Excise Inspectors are filled up both by direct recruitment and promotion, and the feeder category for promotion is the Preventive Officer. Instead of having a rule in exercise of powers under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the State of Kerala has been issuing Government Orders (G.Os.) from time to time dealing with the service conditions of these Preventive Officers as well as the Excise Inspectors and the posts higher thereto and very often contradictory directions are contained in these G.Os. Be that as it may, the High Court in the impugned judgment, on consideration of different G.Os., issued from time to time, came to the conclu-sion, though the stand of the Government has not been uniform and has been changed. According to the State Government, the stand has changed because of different decisions of the Courts. The Court always decides the matter on the basis of the G.Os issued and prevalent at the relevant point of time. So long as the State Government does not frame a statutory rule in exercise of power under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, this sort of jungle rule will prevail and it is, therefore, imperative that the State Government should come forward in framing a set of statutory rules governing the service conditions of the employees under the Excise Department. The High Court in the impugned judgment, having confronted with the problems of different types, wanted to resolve the impasse by giving certain directions con-tained in paragraph 17(3) of the main judgment and one of those directions contained in paragraph 17(2) has been modified on the basis of an application for review filed by the State. So far as the direct recruit to the posts of Preventive Officers who have in the meantime been promoted to the post of Excise Inspectors are concerned and who are the appellants in these civil appeals, they are concerned with the direction contained in sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 17 which is to the effect that the seniority list of Excise Inspectors drawn up on 31.7.1994 which had been published in the Gazette on 16.8.1994, should remain operative and shall be followed for the purpose of promotion to the higher post of Circle Inspector as well as still higher post. The said direct recruits did apply for review of the aforesaid direction con-tained in paragraph 17(3), but the High Court has refused to review the same. In these civil appeals, we are concerned with the legality of the seniority list of Excise Inspectors which had been drawn up on 31.7.1994 and upheld by the High Court in the impugned judgment and that list form the basis for promotion to the post of Circle Inspector and still higher posts. The afore-said list appears to have been drawn up in conformity with the principles enunciated by this Court in some judgment, as has been noted by the High Court in the impugned judgment. No provision contained in any Government Order at the relevant point of time, have been shown to us on the basis of which the aforesaid senior-ity list could be successfully assailed. In our considered opin-ion, therefore, the High Court did not commit any error in ac-cepting the seniority list of the Excise Inspectors drawn up on 31.7.1994 so as to be interfered with by this Court.
2. Writ Petition (C) No. 327/1997 is by Promotee Preventive Officers wherein they assail certain subsequent directions given by the State Government. Writ Petition (C) No. 805/1996 is by the Direct Recruit Preventive Officers and they also assail the decisions of the Government taken subsequent to the impugned judgment of the Kerala High Court. We are not inclined to enter-tain these writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for examining the grievances made therein as those grievances do not relate to the impugned judgment itself. If there has been any contravention of the directions contained in the impugned judgment, the remedy lies in filing application for contempt before the High Court or in filing independent writ petition in the High Court and establish as to how the subsequent decisions are in conformity or not in conformity with the direc-tions contained in the impugned judgment.
3. In the aforesaid premises, the civil appeals and the writ petitions stand dismissed.
1. These appeals and the two writ petitions have been filed by the Direct Recruit Preventive Officers/Promotee Preventive Offic-ers in the Excise Department in the State of Kerala. In the High Court of Kerala several writ petitions had been filed, essential-ly challenging the seniority list of Excise Inspectors which had been drawn up on 31.7.1994. Certain other writ petitions also had been filed for a direction to the Government to convene the Departmental Promotion Committee Meeting for giving promotion to the post of Excise Inspector. The post of Excise Inspectors are filled up both by direct recruitment and promotion, and the feeder category for promotion is the Preventive Officer. Instead of having a rule in exercise of powers under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the State of Kerala has been issuing Government Orders (G.Os.) from time to time dealing with the service conditions of these Preventive Officers as well as the Excise Inspectors and the posts higher thereto and very often contradictory directions are contained in these G.Os. Be that as it may, the High Court in the impugned judgment, on consideration of different G.Os., issued from time to time, came to the conclu-sion, though the stand of the Government has not been uniform and has been changed. According to the State Government, the stand has changed because of different decisions of the Courts. The Court always decides the matter on the basis of the G.Os issued and prevalent at the relevant point of time. So long as the State Government does not frame a statutory rule in exercise of power under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, this sort of jungle rule will prevail and it is, therefore, imperative that the State Government should come forward in framing a set of statutory rules governing the service conditions of the employees under the Excise Department. The High Court in the impugned judgment, having confronted with the problems of different types, wanted to resolve the impasse by giving certain directions con-tained in paragraph 17(3) of the main judgment and one of those directions contained in paragraph 17(2) has been modified on the basis of an application for review filed by the State. So far as the direct recruit to the posts of Preventive Officers who have in the meantime been promoted to the post of Excise Inspectors are concerned and who are the appellants in these civil appeals, they are concerned with the direction contained in sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 17 which is to the effect that the seniority list of Excise Inspectors drawn up on 31.7.1994 which had been published in the Gazette on 16.8.1994, should remain operative and shall be followed for the purpose of promotion to the higher post of Circle Inspector as well as still higher post. The said direct recruits did apply for review of the aforesaid direction con-tained in paragraph 17(3), but the High Court has refused to review the same. In these civil appeals, we are concerned with the legality of the seniority list of Excise Inspectors which had been drawn up on 31.7.1994 and upheld by the High Court in the impugned judgment and that list form the basis for promotion to the post of Circle Inspector and still higher posts. The afore-said list appears to have been drawn up in conformity with the principles enunciated by this Court in some judgment, as has been noted by the High Court in the impugned judgment. No provision contained in any Government Order at the relevant point of time, have been shown to us on the basis of which the aforesaid senior-ity list could be successfully assailed. In our considered opin-ion, therefore, the High Court did not commit any error in ac-cepting the seniority list of the Excise Inspectors drawn up on 31.7.1994 so as to be interfered with by this Court.
2. Writ Petition (C) No. 327/1997 is by Promotee Preventive Officers wherein they assail certain subsequent directions given by the State Government. Writ Petition (C) No. 805/1996 is by the Direct Recruit Preventive Officers and they also assail the decisions of the Government taken subsequent to the impugned judgment of the Kerala High Court. We are not inclined to enter-tain these writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for examining the grievances made therein as those grievances do not relate to the impugned judgment itself. If there has been any contravention of the directions contained in the impugned judgment, the remedy lies in filing application for contempt before the High Court or in filing independent writ petition in the High Court and establish as to how the subsequent decisions are in conformity or not in conformity with the direc-tions contained in the impugned judgment.
3. In the aforesaid premises, the civil appeals and the writ petitions stand dismissed.
