IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2008 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 13018 of 2008(S) -------------------------- OA.227/2007 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER: ------------ K.C.BINDU, AGED 41 YEARS, W/O.P.MOHANAN, GRAMIN DAK SEVAK MAIL DELIVERER EDAKKAD, WEST HILL (PO), CALICUT-5, RESIDING AT "SIVAKRIPA", KELAN PARAMBA, POOVATTU PARAMBA P.O., CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.SHAFIK RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS/DIRECTOR GENERAL, POSTS, NEW DELHI. 2. THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL, KERALA CIRCLE, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE POST MASTER GENERAL, NORTHERN REGION, CALICUT-11. 4. THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, CALICUT DIVISION, KALLAI P.O., CALICUT-3. 5. TINTU K.P., KATTILPARAMBATH, VENGERI P.O., CALICUT-10. BY ADV.SHRI P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASST.S.G. & ADV. SRI.JOMY GEORGE,(CGSC) FOR R1 TO 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI JJ. ----------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.13018 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 9th DAY OF JUNE, 2008 J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner was the applicant in O.A.No.227/07 before the CAT, Ernakulam Bench. The petitioner is working as a Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Deliverer in Edakkad Post Office. When a vacancy arose in Peruvayal which is a nearby place to her residence, she applied for a transfer to that post on medical grounds. Instead of transferring her, the said post was filled up by redeploying the 5th respondent. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, the Original Application was filed. She prayed for quashing Annexure A1 by which the 5th respondent was appointed by redeployment on 1.12.2006 and sought consequential reliefs. 2. The respondents filed Exhibit P2 reply statement contending that the said post was set apart to be filled up by redeployment and therefore it was not available for being filled up by transfer. The petitioner filed rejoinder disputing the said W.P.(C)No.13018/08 -2- claim. 3. Before the CAT, the petitioner contended that the decision to set apart the vacancy to be filled up by redeployment is illegal and is vitiated by mala fides. Further, the 5th respondent did not have three years minimum service to make her eligible for redeployment. It was also contended that she was accommodated in another post and it was therefore unnecessary to post her at Peruvayal. The Tribunal overruled those contentions. According to the Tribunal, the ineligibility of the 5th respondent for the reason that she does not have the requisite service or that she is already accommodated elsewhere is not a ground available to the applicant to claim the post set apart for being filled by redeployment and the applicant have no right to claim that post. Taking the above view, the O.A. was dismissed. The petitioner attacks the said decision in this writ petition. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner again reiterated the aforementioned contentions which were unsuccessfully canvassed before the CAT. The petitioner also attempted to make a collateral challenge against the decision to set apart the post at Peruvayal for being filled up by redeployment. In the O.A., what is under challenge is only the appointment of the 5th respondent as per W.P.(C)No.13018/08 -3- Annexure A1. The collateral challenge raised against the decision to earmark the post concerned to be filled up by redeployment cannot be entertained by us in the absence of any pleadings in the O.A. Further, we agree with the reasons and conclusions of the Tribunal that the ineligibility of the 5th respondent for being posted at Pueruvayal is not a point which can be canvassed by the writ petitioner/applicant, but only by another person who has got better claim over the 5th respondent for redeployment. In the result, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn