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 16TH AUGUST 2010 / 25TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 24393 of 2010(S) -------------------------- OS.349/2009 of CAT,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, VADAKARA DIVISION, VADAKARA. 2. POST MASTER GENERAL, NORTHERN REGION, KOZHIKODE. 3. DEPARTMENT PROMOTION COMMITTEES, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN-SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, VADAKARA DIVISION, VADAKARA. 4. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS, NEW DELHI. BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC RESPONDENT(S): APPLICANT/5TH RESPONDENT --------------------------------------- 1. P.M.PADMANABHAN, S/O THE LATE KRISHNAKURUP AGED 52 YEARS, GROUP D, VADAKARA HEAD POST OFFICE, VADAKARA RESIDING AT "SREEPADMAM", KURUNHALAYODE.P.O, VILLIAPPALLI(VIA) VADAKARA-673542. 2. N.K.BALACHANDRAN, POSTMAN, MADAPPALLY COLLEGE.P.O., VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE PIN-673102. R1 BY SRI.O.V.RADHAKRISHNAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SMT.K.RADHAMANI AMMA SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN (THYKOODAM) R2 BY ADV.SRI.C.GOVINDASWAMY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.24393 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1.We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent, who was the applicant before the Tribunal in O.A.349/09, from which, this writ petition arises. We also record the appearance of Adv.T.C.Govindaswamy on behalf of the second respondent. 2.The writ petitioners (establishment) is aggrieved by order dated 26.7.2010 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, which, essentially, is an interim order directing the establishment to pass appropriate orders promoting the applicant (Padmanabhan), first respondent herein, with effect from 2005 and to report such matter to the Tribunal. Today, we are also shown by the learned counsel appearing for Padmanabhan that WPC.24393/10. 2 the Tribunal had passed yet another order subsequently on 4.8.2010 essentially reiterating the earlier stand. 3.Padmanabhan had agitated a claim that he is eligible for being considered for promotion. That issue was subject matter of O.A.704/06, which was disposed of by the Tribunal. The establishment filed a review petition against that decision. That was also decided against the establishment. The matter came to this Court. The Division Bench affirmed the decision of the Tribunal, thereby the establishment stood obliged to consider the case of Padmanabhan for promotion. Ultimately, Padmanabhan moved the Tribunal alleging that the establishment has courted contempt by disobeying the directions. The establishment filed a counter affidavit. On the basis of those materials, the Tribunal disposed of the contempt application holding that no contempt is made out. It was specifically within the knowledge of the Tribunal at that point of time that N.K.Balachandran, second respondent herein, had been appointed in preference to the applicant Padmanabhan. WPC.24393/10. 3 4.We are clear in our mind that the closure of the contempt proceedings does not deprive Padmanabhan of his right to sue, if any, as against the appointment of Balachandran. He filed O.A.349/09 from which this writ petition arises. 5.It is submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing for Padmanabhan as also the learned counsel for the establishment that the parties had placed before the Tribunal elaborate pleadings finalising their stand. It appears that the establishment was sticking on to the statutory rules while the applicant Padmanabhan tries to get the benefit of the earlier judgment in O.A.704/06. We are clear in our mind that in such a situation, the issue before the tribunal was as to whether the establishment was justified in preferring Balachandran over Padmanabhan for being appointed as against the vacancy in question. We are also told that the tribunal could have also considered whether both Padmanabhan and Balachandran could have been accommodated in the same category having WPC.24393/10. 4 regard to the availability of vacancies, subject to the rules and the decisions binding inter partis. 6.In the aforesaid context, we are clear that the impugned order dated 26.7.2010 of the tribunal and the subsequent order issued on 4.8.2010, on which day, we had admitted this writ petition, would not stand in the way of the tribunal deciding the matter finally on merits. 7.For the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the impugned order Ext.P7 dated 26.7.2010. As a consequence, the tribunal will treat its order dated 4.8.2010 as one that does not stand. It would accordingly proceed to hear parties and dispose of the matter on merits finally, the fundamental issue being the inter- se dispute between Padmanabhan and Balachandran to preferential treatment for appointment against the post. We clarify that this judgment does no,t in any manner, answer any of the contentions on merits and all issues are left open for the tribunal to decide. Having regard to the nature of the case, WPC.24393/10. 5 the tribunal will make an endeavour to dispose of the matter expeditiously. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, Judge. kkb.19/08.