IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2008 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 16999 of 2008(S) -------------------------- OA.241/2006 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER: ------------ 1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEADQUARTERS OFFICE, PARK TOWN P.O, CHENNAI-3. 2. THE CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEADQUARTERS OFFICE, PARK TOWN P.O, CHENNAI-3. 3. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALGHAT DIVISION, PALGHAT. 4. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALGHAT DIVISION, PALGHAT. BY ADV. SRI.M.C.CHERIAN,SR.SC.,RAILWAYS RESPONDENTS: ------------- R.RENGASAMY, HEAD CLERK/ WORKS, O/O SENIOR SECTION ENGINEER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, TIRUPPUR, RESIDING AT 67/E, V.R.STREET, KALLUKKADA MEDU, ERODE-638001. BY ADV.SHRI T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI JJ. ----------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.16999 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF JUNE, 2008 J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioners are the respondents in O.A.No.241/06. The respondent herein was the applicant. The applicant who was a Head Clerk feeling aggrieved by his non-inclusion in Annexure A5 panel for promotion to the post of Office Superintendent Grade-II, represented before the competent authority. The said representation, Annexure A8 was rejected by the competent authority by Annexure A9. Their cause was espoused by their trade union. But, the Union's representation in this regard stood rejected by Annexure A11. The O.A. was filed challenging Annexures A9 and A11 and also seeking inclusion in Annexure A5 panel. 2. It was common case that there were 10 vacancies available for promotion to the post of Office Superintendent Gr.Ii. Only 10 persons in the feeder category were considered for those posts. One of them was found ineligible. So, a panel of 9 alone was drawn up instead of considering another person from the feeder category. The next person in the feeder category was the applicant. Though the applicant challenged his non-inclusion on several grounds, the above said irregularity was upheld by the Tribunal and it was held that the applicant was liable to be considered for promotion to the 10th W.P.(C)No.16999/08 -2- vacancy and he should have been included in Annexure A5 panel, if found otherwise eligible for the same. The above finding and consequential directions in Annexure A5 order of the CAT in the above OA is attacked in this writ petition on various grounds. But, at the time of hearing, learned counsel for the Railways pointed out that the supersession of the 10th candidate is under challenge by her before the CAT. Therefore, the applicant's claim could not have been considered before the disposal of that O.A. 3. Whenever there is supersession of a senior, he or she as the case may be, will challenge it and if the challenge is upheld, the promotions already affected will be reviewed. In this case also, if the challenge of the superseded candidate succeeds, the promotion granted to her junior will be reviewed. But that is not a valid ground for not considering the claim of the applicant at the relevant time, when Annexure A5 panel was prepared. In the result, the writ petition is devoid of any merit and it is accordingly dismissed. But, it is clarified that if the superseded candidate succeeds in her challenge, the official respondents will be free to review the promotion granted to the respondent herein, in accordance with law. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn