This is luxury litigation: SC on Kerala challenging clerk’s rank

The Supreme Court in the case The State of Kerala and Or’s. V. Subeer N.S. And Anr observed assailing the

Kerala High Court’s order of affirming the seniority of an upper division clerk for filling a Special Leave Petition pulled up the State of Kerala.

The Government lost sight of these aspects while

issuing Annexure-a13

order ratifying Annexurea10 decision of the Director of Public Instruction on Annexure-a5 complaint was undertaken by the Director of Public Instruction, who has no authority to take a decision invoking Rule 27B of Part II KS &

SSR based on the review of the Seniority the Director of Public Instruction and the Government while

issuing the impugned orders, none of these aspects wee considered to Annexure-a3 final seniority list also by any of the aggrieved persons except a bogus complaint submitted as Annexure A5, that too almost 3 years after the finalization of the seniority

list and there was no objection and further there was no objections to the rank and seniority assigned to

the applicant in the provisional seniority list. the

said seniority is finalized after publishing a provisional seniority list and inviting objections if any to

the same as early as on 8th March 2009., the bench observed While affirming the view by KAT.

the said mistake was brought to the notice of the authorities, necessary corrective action was taken and the applicant’s seniority was reassigned based on his eligibility on the part of the controlling officer it is only by a mistake that he was granted promotion and was assigned the rank

in the seniority list, the counsel said to further persuade the bench.

The Bench of Justice Chandrachud remarked that if the counsel feels there is an error you must rectify the error correctly and there was no fraud on his part and all this must

be due on a reasonable dispatch.

The bench comprising of Justice DY Chandrachud

further observed and noted when the matter was called upon hearing before

the bench that the State is here challenging it the bench further remarked by saying that why don’t you do something better? Build schools, roads or infrastructure as one upper division clerk has got seniority.

Respondent’s seniority was revised to the date on which he rejoined duty

after the leave and the respondent was on leave without allowance at the

time of his promotion as U.D Clerk, the counsel appearing for the State contended before the Court.

The Bench comprising of Justice DY Chandrachud

and the justice Surya Kant orally remarked while dismissing the SLP against the order dated 01.17.2022., We

are not a court of law but a court of justice as well.