IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 7TH JUNE 2010 / 17TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).NO. 32592 OF 2008(S) -------------------------- {OA.503/2007 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH} .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- L.PREMKUMAR, S/O.LAKSHNMANAN, AGED 49 YEARS, SUBAMANGALAM VILLAGE, C.K.ASHRAMAM POST, TIRUPATTUR, VELLUR DISTRICT, PIN-635 602. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.MOHANAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DIVISIONAL PERSONAL OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PALGHAT-678 002. 2. DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PALGHAT-678002. 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER,SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PARK TOWN, P.O.CHENNAI-3. ADV. SRI.N.B.SUNIL NATH,SC, RAILWAYS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 32592 OF 2008 :: :: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.A.NO.503/2007 DATED 12.3.2008. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION O.A.NO.503/2007. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT IN O.A.NO.503/2007. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER IN O.A.NO.503/2007. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL //true copy// P.S. To Judge SK/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.32592 of 2008 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. The petitioner was admittedly a casual labourer for some time and had a 'casual labour card' with the Railways. Though kept out of employment, later, in terms of the directions of the Apex Court in Inter Pal Yadav & Ors v. Union of India & Ors {1985(2) SLR 249}, the petitioner's case was also considered when he applied, following invitation of applications from retrenched casual labourers available in the live register. However, on verification of the testimonials, the certificate produced in proof of age was found to be not dependable. It appears that contradictions were seen when the certificate was sent for scrutiny through the school authorities. He moved the W.P.(C)No.32592 of 2008 :: 2 :: Tribunal and obtained a direction for consideration of his case on the basis of materials that he later obtained. The Department, however, rejected his case. He again went to the Tribunal and filed O.A.No.503/07. 2. Before the Tribunal, he produced a new certificate, which was issued by the Tahsildar of the concerned Taluk after due verification. Even according to the tribunal, “No doubt that the new certificate which is now produced by the applicant is a genuine one and the same has been issued after due verification by the Tahsildar of the concerned Taluk.” This position notwithstanding, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the applicant would have misrepresented facts at the time of his initial engagement by making wrong declaration as to his age. The Tribunal took the view that the integrity of a Government servant is the most essential qualification rather than any of his educational or technical W.P.(C)No.32592 of 2008 :: 3 :: qualifications. The Tribunal, accordingly, rejected the applicant's request. 3. While it is definitely true that the integrity is not to be compromised, the fact of the matter remains that the applicant belongs to the marginalised sector of the society and going by Annexure A7 document, which has been belied by the Tribunal, he had hardly, education till the 6th standard. He was a casual labourer with the Railways between 1982 and 1984. The thrust of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Inter Pal Yadav's case was to provide succor for casual labourers, who happened to be uneducated. 4. Taking into account the entire materials, we are of the view that justice demands that the respondents be directed to treat Annexure A7, as having been issued by the competent authority with clearance from the Tahsildar. This will only serve the ends of justice and provide an opportunity to the applicant to work for the Railways, in terms of the directions W.P.(C)No.32592 of 2008 :: 4 :: issued by the Apex Court in Inter Pal Yadav's case. For the aforesaid reasons, Ext.P1 is set aside and O.A.No.503/07 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench will stand ordered, directing the respondents therein to take up the case of the petitioner and issue such orders, as may be called for, in the light of Annexure A7 certificate and he be admitted to duty accordingly, in terms of the appropriate guidelines. Let this be done at the earliest, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is ordered as above. Sd/- (THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN) JUDGE Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge.