The petitioner, an employee of the Kerala State Electricity Board, has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P1 provisional seniority list prepared for the purpose of general transfer during the current year insofar as it relates to the station seniority position of the petitioner and the fifth respondent. He also prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the second respondent to consider Ext.P2 representation wherein he has requested the second respondent to rectify the anomaly in Ext.P1 seniority list. Ext.P1 seniority list is only a provisional seniority list. It is one prepared for the purpose of general transfer. It is stipulated therein that corrections/omission/objections/complaints, if any, may be brought to the notice of the second respondent before 15.06.2014 with documentary evidence. Ext.P2 representation is one submitted pursuant thereto. The name of the petitioner appears at serial No.21 in Ext.P1. It shows that he is working in W.P.(C) No. 15469/2014 -2-
Electrical Section, Pathirappally where he joined duty on 12.03.2004. It also shows that he has applied for protection from transfer. The name of the fifth respondent appears at serial No.93 therein. Ext.P1 shows that the fifth respondent is also working in the Electrical Section, Pathirappally, where he joined duty on 02.05.2010. He has not applied for protection or for transfer. The grievance of the petitioner is that he and the fifth respondent had rendered service under the Mavelikkara Sub Division when it was part of the Alappuzha Circle, but, with the formation of Haripad Circle in January, 2014 by bifurcation of Alappuzha Circle, Mavelikkara Sub Division came under the Haripad Circle and when the station seniority list of Alappuzha Circle is prepared, the service rendered by the petitioner in Mavelikkara Sub Division before bifurcation was added, but in the case of the fifth respondent it was not and consequently the petitioner is treated as senior in the station. The petitioner has not, however, stated this facts with clarity in Ext.P2 representation. Ext.P2 representation does not set out the case raised in paragraph 3 and ground B of the writ petition. In view of the fact that the petitioner has not in Ext.P2 W.P.(C) No. 15469/2014 -3-
set out the grievance voiced in the writ petition, I am of the opinion that he should supplement Ext.P2 representation by filing an additional representation within a week from today and thereupon, the second respondent should consider whether there is any merit or substance in the said representation and take appropriate action.
I, accordingly dispose of the writ petition with a direction that in the event of the petitioner supplementing Ext.P2 representation within one week from today by filing an additional representation, the second respondent shall examine Ext.P2 as also the supplementary representation and take an appropriate decision in the matter after affording the petitioner as well as the fifth respondent an opportunity of being heard, expeditiously and in any event within one month from the date of receipt of the supplementary representation.
sd/- P. N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE.
rv