IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2008 / 25TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 6789 of 2006(S) ------------------------- OA.741/2004 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER: ------------ M.K.ABDUL RAHEEM, MALMIKAKKADA HOUSE, KALPENI, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAVEENDRAN SMT.P.M.SWAYAM PRABHA SRI.ANIL KUMAR M.SIVARAMAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE ADMINISTRATOR, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATHI. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATHI. 3. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. ADDL. RESPONDENT: 4. B.i.M.C. (1706) KALPENI, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP. (IS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL R4 AS PER ORDER DT. 4.4.07 IN IA NO.5129/07) WPC 6789/2006 BY ADV. SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,SC,LAKSHADWEEP ADMN SRI.DENU JOSEPH SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY SRI.P.V.ABDUL SAMAD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 6789/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS. EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION F.NO.6/18/2001 EDN., DATED 19.4.2003 ISSUED BY THE ADMINISTRATION. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE SELECT LIST APPEARED IN THE LAKSHADWEEP TIMES DATED 2.6.2003. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER DATED 4.9.2004. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION INVITED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 9.9.2004, AS F.NO.18/14/2004-EDN. EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.11.2005 IN O.A.N O.741/2004 PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH. EXT.P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21.5.2007 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR APPOINTING THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P7 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, HOME AFFAIRS, RESTRICTING THE AGE LIMIT, DATED 18.3.1999. /TRUE COPY/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & K.T.SANKARAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 6789 OF 2006-S ----------------------------------------- Dated 15th January, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner challenges Ext.P5 order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, dismissing O.A.No.741/2004 filed by him, claiming appointment as Primary School Teacher under the Lakshadweep Administration. 2. The brief facts of the case are the following: The petitioner is having S.S.L.C and T.T.C qualifications. The Lakshadweep Administration issued Ext.P1 notification, inviting applications to the post of Primary School Teacher. Altogether 22 vacancies were notified. It was notified in Ext.P1 that persons with S.S.L.C and T.T.C/T.C.H will be granted one-time concession for applying to the post notified as per Ext.P1. It was pursuant to a decision taken by the Administrator, Union Territory of Lakshadweep, invoking the power under Rule 5 of the Lakshadweep Administration, Education Department, Headmasters, J.B.Schools, Trained Graduate Wpc 6789/2006 2 Teachers/Warden and Primary School Teachers (Class III posts) Recruitment Rules, 2002, published in the gazette dated 17.9.2002. In Ext.P1 it was also specified that the persons with S.S.L.C and T.T.C/T.C.H will be considered only for filling up 50% of the vacancies. The petitioner submits, pursuant to Ext.P1, he applied for the post. He was included in Ext.P2 rank-list. As per Ext.P2, altogether 20 candidates were selected and two were included in the wait list. The petitioner was No.2 in the wait list. Alleging that since 22 vacancies were notified as per Ext.P1, he should have been appointed in the 22nd vacancy, the O.A was filed. The respondents resisted the application, pointing out that out of the vacancies notified as per Ext.P1, only in 11 vacancies the claim of S.S.L.C holders can be considered. Another notification was issued, inviting applications to the very same post. As per that notification, 17 vacancies were notified. Out of the 17 vacancies, only in 9 vacancies persons like the petitioner with S.S.L.C and T.T.C/T.C.H qualifications could be considered. Thus, the total vacancies in which the S.S.L.C holders could be considered came to 20. Therefore, the rank-list of 20 persons was published as per Ext.P2 and two persons were included to fill up the vacancies, if any, which arise as a result of non- joining duty by the appointed candidates. The above list of 20 candidates would show that it is separated as 11 and 9, to correspond to the two Wpc 6789/2006 3 notifications mentioned above. Out of the 20 candidates, one of the candidates underwent the selection process pursuant to the interim order of the Tribunal. Later that O.A was dismissed. Therefore, that candidate was excluded from the list. So, the first person included in the wait list was also considered for appointment. As per the Rules applicable to recruitment in the Lakshadweep Administration, only notified vacancies can be filled up. The wait list can be operated only for filling up any non-joining vacancy and not for any vacancy that may arise subsequently. So, the respondents submitted that since all the vacancies available for S.S.L.C holders, that is 20 out of 39 vacancies notified were filled up, the applicant was not appointed. The Tribunal upheld the contention of the respondents and dismissed the O.A. Hence this writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions which the applicant raised before the C.A.T. According to him, since 22 vacancies were notified, the petitioner being the 22nd candidate, he should have been appointed. But, we notice that altogether 39 vacancies were notified (22 + 17) and as evident from Ext.P1 notification, only 50% of those vacancies will be available for filling up persons with S.S.L.C and T.T.C/T.C.H qualifications. That means, the maximum vacancies available were 20 and in fact, 20 persons were appointed from Ext.P2 list. Therefore, Wpc 6789/2006 4 the claim of the petitioner is plainly untenable. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised a new contention before this Court, which was not raised before the C.A.T., that some of the candidates included in the rank-list were having Pre-degree qualification and therefore, they were ineligible to be included in the rank-list of S.S.L.C holders. It is also submitted that the additional 4th respondent was over- aged and therefore, she was wrongly included in the rank-list. 5. These are all matters which the petitioner has to agitate at the first instance before the Central Administrative Tribunal. This Court has got no original jurisdiction to entertain disputes regarding service matters of Central Government employees. They have to first approach the C.A.T. Only against the orders of the C.A.T., this Court can exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. In view of the above position, the writ petition is dismissed. But, the dismissal of the writ petition will not affect the rights, if any, of the petitioner to move the C.A.T Wpc 6789/2006 5 against the alleged inclusion of ineligible candidates in Ext.P2 rank-list. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. Nm/