IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2008 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 35907 of 2008(S) -------------------------- OA.38/2007 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER: --------------- P.SURESHAN,S/O. P.BHASKARAN NAIR, PANNIAMKUZHIYIL, KOODATHAI BAZAR P.O., KOZHIKODE DIST. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.KRISHNAN NAIR SMT.RAJESWARI KRISHNAN SRI.KRISHNAN NANDAKUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. CHIEF SUPERINTENDNET OF POST OFFICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SENIOR SUPERINTENDNET OF POST OFFICES, CALICUT , CALICUT 673 003. 3. SENIOR POSTMASTER, OFFICE OF THE SR. POST MASTER, CALICUT-1. 4. UNION OF INDIA , REP. BY THE SECRETARY, POSTS & TELEGRAPHS, NEW DELHI. ADV.SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASSISTANT S.G. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 35907 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of December, 2008 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner was the applicant in O.A.No.38/2007 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. The respondents herein were the respondents in that Original Application. The petitioner was a casual driver working under the 3rd respondent. While so, the competent authority issued Annexure A4 notification, a copy of which is produced along with Ext.P8 amended copy of the Original Application. As per Annexure A4 dated 19.9.2006, applications were invited for appointment to the post of drivers in the departmental quota. Two vacancies were notified, out of which, one was unreserved and one was for O.B.C. Later, without proceeding further with Annexure A4, the competent authority issued Annexure A5 notification, notifying three vacancies of drivers to be recruited from the open market. Two of them was reserved for O.B.C. and one was unreserved. But, the age limit for recruitment was W.P.(C) No.35907/2008 2 between 21 and 28 years. Since the petitioner was over aged, he could not apply pursuant to A5 notification. Since the petitioner claimed that he is a departmental candidate, he did not apply for appointment as driver pursuant to Annexure A5. In the meantime, all the vehicles in Calicut under the postal department were condemned as unfit to ply on the roads and private vehicles were arranged for transporting mail as per Annexure A11 to A15 orders. In the above background, the writ petitioner/applicant approached the C.A.T. challenging A5 and also challenging Annexure A11 to A15. He prayed for a direction to the respondents to proceed with the selection as per Annexure A4 treating him as a departmental candidate. 2. The respondents herein, who were the respondents in that O.A, resisted the application contending that the petitioner is only a casual driver and therefore he cannot be treated as a departmental candidate. He was not selected pursuant to any selection process and there is no order appointing him, as in the case of regular appointees. So, he cannot be treated as a departmental candidate and therefore, he is ineligible to apply W.P.(C) No.35907/2008 3 for the post notified as per Annexure A4. They further contended that as per Annexure A5 notification only those who were below the age of 28 years can apply. The petitioner was already aged 39 years and therefore he was not qualified. Regarding Annexure A11 to A15, the respondents submitted that since the vehicles were not having fitness certificate, it was decided to condemn those vehicles. Therefore, pending acquisition of fresh vehicles, it was decided to arrange the transportation of mail using private vehicles. It is a policy matter. A casual driver like the petitioner/applicant does not have any locus standi to challenge the same. 3. The Tribunal considered the rival contentions and upheld all the points raised by the respondents and dismissed the Original Application by Ext.P18 order. Though a review application was attempted, the same was dismissed by Ext.P20. Hence this writ petition, challenging Exts.P18 and P20 and also seeking to quash the orders impugned in the Original Application. W.P.(C) No.35907/2008 4 4. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Going by the materials on record, we find nothing wrong with the decision of the C.A.T. The petitioner being a daily waged employee, who has been selected without following the due selection process, cannot be treated as a departmental candidate for the purpose of Annexure A4. He was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange also. As far as Annexure A5 is concerned, the petitioner is over aged and therefore he is ineligible to apply for direct recruitment from the open market. We find nothing wrong with the said stand of the respondents. Annexure A11 to A15 are orders making arrangement for transporting mail articles using private vehicles, as all the departmental vehicles were condemned. We find nothing wrong with the said action of the competent authority. We agree with the contentions of the respondents that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the same. In the result, this writ petition fails and it is dismissed. But, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents have not even extended the limited benefit W.P.(C) No.35907/2008 5 granted to him by the C.A.T. under Ext.P8. If that be so, the remedy of the petitioner is to move the C.A.T by filing a contempt application. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE) ps