IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2011 / 11TH BHADRA 1933 OP (CAT).No. 1053 of 2011(Z) ---------------------------- (AGAINST ORDER DATED 11/03/2010 IN OA.787/2009 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH) .................... PETITIONERS / RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 IN THE O.A. -------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA,REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE (DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, DAIRYING & FISHERIES), NEW DELHI 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, FISHERY SURVEY OF INDIA, BATAWALA CHAMBERS, SIR.P.M.ROAD, MUMBAI-400001 3. THE ZONAL DIRECTOR, FISHERY SURVEY OF INDIA,KOCHANGADI, KOCHI-682005 4. THE SECRETARY, UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DHOLPUR HOUSE, SHAHJAHAN ROAD, NEW DELHI. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA RESPONDENT(S): / APPLICANT --------------- A JOHN CHEMBIAN, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.S.ANTONY RAYAPPAN FERNANDO, SR. SCIENTIFIC ASSISTANT, FISHERY SURVEY OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, (DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, DAIRYING & FISHERIES), KOCHANGADI, KOCHI - 682 005 (RESIDING AT QUARTERS NO.C-1, TYPE-IV, FSI QUARTERS, ST.FRANCIS XAVIER CHURCH CROSS ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 018.) ADV. SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY FOR R1 SMT.S.SYAMALA DEVI THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(CAT) NO.1053/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.787 OF 2009 ALONG WITH ITS ANNEXURE FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HONOURABLE CAT, ERNAKULAM. P2 : COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS IN EXT.P1 ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.787/2009 BEFORE HONOURABLE CAT, ERNAKULAM. P3 : COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT-UPSC IN O.A.NO.787/2009. P4 : COPY OF REJOINDER FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT/APPLICANT IN O.A.NO.787/2009 BEFORE THE CAT, ERNAKULAM. P5 : COPY OF ORDER DATED 11/03/2010 PASSED BY THE CAT, ERNAKULAM IN O.A.NO.787/2009. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. .................................................................... OP(CAT) No.1053 of 2011 .................................................................... Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2011. J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, J. This OP(CAT) is filed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal directing the petitioners and the UPSC to consider the respondent for selection to the post of Fisheries Scientist. 2. We have heard Shri.P.Parameswaran Nair, learned Asst. Solicitor General appearing for the petitioners and Shri.Mohan Kumar learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. Vacancies of Fisheries Scientists arose in the year 2001 and applications were invited for the posts both from outside and from Departmental candidates. The respondent was one among the qualified persons within the service and he applied for the post. However, no appointments were made on the ground that some cases are pending in the Bombay High Court. In other words, no selection was made pursuant OP(CAT) No.1053/2011 2 to Annexure A2 notification issued in 2001. However, on 14/02/2009 Annexure A4 order was issued by the petitioners again calling for applications for the same post, wherein the cut off date for upper age limit was fixed as 14/04/2009. As the respondent was above 40 years of age, he was found to be ineligible to apply for the post. The respondent challenged the notification on the ground that some of the posts notified to be filled up arose in 2001 and on account of delay on the part of the petitioners to fill up the posts, the respondent was perpetually denied the opportunity. Accepting this contention, the CAT directed the petitioners to consider the respondent who had infact made application for selection pursuant to Annexure A2 notification which was not followed up by the petitioners. 4. After hearing both sides, we do not find any ground to interfere with the opportunity granted to the respondent by the Tribunal to apply for the post because if Annexure A2 was pursued the respondent would have been considered for selection to the post of Fisheries Scientist in 2001 itself. The OP(CAT) No.1053/2011 3 delay in making appointment should not lead to permanent disability to eligible departmental candidates. However, we feel the Tribunal should have extended the same benefit to others in service who have responded to Annexure A2 notification for the same post in the year 2001. Unfortunately similarly placed persons like the respondent have not gone to the Tribunal or approached this Court for relief. In order to avoid discrimination among qualified persons we direct the petitioners to consider the case of those applicants who have applied for the post in 2001, so that if they are interested they can also apply for the post now notified with reference to the age limit as prescribed in Annexure A2 notification. This O.P.(CAT) is dismissed but with direction to the petitioners to give relief to similarly placed applicants like the respondent as above. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) jg