Antony Dominic, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the respondents in W.P(C). 40427/03, aggrieved by the judgment of the learned single Judge, quashing Exts.P4, P6 and P8 and directing them to re-consider the claim of the respondent for the benefit of grade promotions.
2. We heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
3. The respondent commenced her service as Lower Division Typist in Palakkad district on 27.10.1982. Subsequently, on her request, she was granted inter- district transfer and accordingly, she joined duty at Trivandrum on 8.6.1987. By Ext.P1 order, she was promoted as Upper Division Typist with effect from 1.8.1987. While continuing as UD Typist, Ext.P2 seniority list of LD Typists was issued, where, the respondent was shown at Sl.No.7. Subsequently, the revised final seniority list of LD Typists was issued by Ext.P3 dated 29.10.1997, where the respondent was shown at Sl.No.57. Still later, Ext.P4 order was issued which again stated that she was promoted as UD Typist with effect from 1.4.1996. The respondent represented against Ext.P4 mainly relying on Ext.P1 and that representation was rejected by Ext.P6. Her further representation to the Government was also rejected by Ext.P8. It in these circumstances the writ petition was filed. Learned single Judge allowed the writ petition mainly relying on Ext.P9 judgment in O.P.13/98, where the seniority position of the respondent was, according to the learned Judge, settled by this Court. Therefore, the learned single judge ordered re-consideration of the claim of the respondent.
4. When the appeal was taken up for hearing, we were informed that Ext.P9 judgment mentioned above has been set aside by a Division Bench of this Court in its judgment in W.A.1743/07 by judgment dated 26.8.2011.
5. Apart from that, reading of Ext.P4, by which the respondent was ordered to be promoted with effect from 1.4.1996 as UD Typist which was objected to by her in Exts.P5 and P7 representations leading to Exts.P6 and P8 orders, shows that the revision of her date of promotion was necessitated on account of Ext.P3 revised final seniority list. That seniority list was not challenged by the respondent and therefore, the consequential action taken on the basis of the revised seniority list resulting in Ext.P4 whereby the date of promotion is revised, also could not have been challenged by the respondent. Therefore, the challenge of the respondent against Exts.P4, P6 and P8 has to be repelled and we do so. Necessarily, the claim for higher grade promotion from 1.8.1987, the date from which she was promoted by Ext.P1 order, also is untenable.
In the aforesaid circumstances, the judgment of the learned single Judge cannot be sustained and is set aside. The writ appeal is allowed as above.
Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge.
kkb.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, Judge.