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. 7760 of 2010(S) ------------------------- OA.684/2009 of CAT,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- D.V.PRAVEEN, S/O.DAMODARAN PILLAI, AGED 35 YEARS, WORKING AS GRAMIN DAK SEVAK MAIL DELIVERER, KUREEPUZHA P.O., KOLLAM RESIDING AT PRANAVAM HOUSE, AMBIPOIKA, KUNDARA P.O., KOLLAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SEBASTIAN SRI.MARTIN G.THOTTAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL, KERALA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE INSPECTOR POSTS, KOLLAM NORTH SUB DIVISION, KOLLAM. 3. THE SR.SUPDT. OF POST OFFICES, KOLLAM DIVISION, KOLLAM-691 001. 4. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, NEW DELHI. ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.7760 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1.The petitioner contended that he was working as GDS MD, Kureepuzha as per the appointment granted by the second respondent taking into consideration his earlier services as casual labourer and on his coming out second in merit in the selection for the post of EDDA, Thangassery. It is also contended that he had completed 240 days as casual labourer prior to his adhoc appointment to the post of EDDA, Thangassery entitling his preference for EDA (GDS) appointment in terms of Director General posts letter dated 6.6.1988. It is also his case that the respondent had appointed other persons who are similarly situated to him as ED agents and that he is being discriminated against. The Tribunal, after adverting to the entire materials on record, WPC.7760/10 2 noticed that the status of the applicant was subject matter of O.A.51/02 and the Tribunal, on 18.8.2004, held that he was appointed without any selection process. The Tribunal also noted that the said decision was confirmed by this Court in W.P(C).32024/04, however, with certain observations. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for by him in the original application from which this writ petition arises. 2.Before us, having not found anyway to upset the findings of the Tribunal, learned counsel for the petitioner made a serious endeavour to state that there are certain observations and remarks made by the Tribunal in Ext.P1, which would ultimately impinge on the right, if any, of the petitioner for relief from the department in terms of Ext.P3. We are clear in our mind that the final verdict in the impugned order being against the petitioner, the findings therein, if relatable to a subsequent claim that the petitioner would make on the basis WPC.7760/10 3 of Ext.P3, has to be rectified only by making appropriate application to the Tribunal. 3.Having found no merit to interfere with the ultimate decision rendered by the Tribunal as per Ext.P1 order, we dismiss the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to move the Tribunal for review of Ext.P1 to the extent of seeking any clarification to expunge any remark therein, which the petitioner feels is against his interest. We record the submission of the learned counsel for the Central Government that selection has already been made and another candidate has been appointed. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, Judge. kkb.8/06.