IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 25169 of 2009(S) -------------------------- OA.93/2008 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- SAJITHA BABU.K.K., D/O.P.KUNJUMOHAMMED KOYA, HIND BABU NIVAS, KALPENI, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.ABDUL SAMMAD SRI.V.D.BALAKRISHNA KARTHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA-REPRESENTED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATHI. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATHI. ADV. SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,STANDING COUNSEL,LAKSHADWEEP ADMN. -R1&2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.C.NO.25169 OF 2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER's EXHIBITS: Ext.P1: True copy of the Notification No.18/43/2006/Edn./Estt. Dated 19.05.2007. Ext.P2: True copy of the Notification No.18/43/2006/Edn./Estt. Dated 9.10.2007 issued by the 2nd respondent. Ext.P3: True copy of Order F.No.12/37/2005-service dated 5.9.2005 issued by 1st respondent. Ext.P4: True copy of Order F.No.12/37/2005 dated 28.4.2007 from 1st respondent. Ext.P5: True copy of Order F.No.18/43/2006 dated 1.2.2008 from the 2nd respondent. Ext.P6: True copy of the representation dated 4.2.2008 from the petitioner to the 1st respondent. Ext.P7: True copy of the O.A.No.93/2008 filed before the Honourable Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. Ext.P8: Copy & reply. Ext.P9: True copy of order dated 31/07/09 in O.A.No.93/2008 of Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL KURIAN JOSEPH & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 25169 OF 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of November, 2009 JUDGMENT Kurian Joseph, J. This Writ Petition is filed against Ext.P9 order passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench in O.A No.93 of 2008. The said O.A was filed to declare Annexure-A5 selection list as invalid since there was violation of the prescribed selection procedure, in the matter of selection to the post of TGT(M). The Tribunal as per the order under challenge dismissed the application. Paragraph 4 of the order reads as hereunder:- 4. Since the learned counsel for the applicant was not available for the arguments, we did not have the opportunity to hear him. However, we have perused the documents available on records carefully. We have also heard Shri.S.Radhakrishnan, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Learned standing counsel for the Administration points out that the petitioner has to thank herself since there was no appearance effectively on several occasions and the Tribunal had once dismissed the application for non- prosecution and it had been restored thereafter on the request of the petitioner and yet, at the time of hearing, there was no representation. Hence the Tribunal was constrained to pass an order, without hearing the petitioner. Having heard W.P.(C) NO.25169 of 2009 2 both sides, we are inclined to grant another opportunity to the petitioner to present her case before the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, particularly in the view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on the day fixed by this court, the party will be represented effectively by the counsel. Therefore, we set aside Ext.P9 order and remit the matter to the Tribunal. The parties will appear before the Tribunal on 14.12.2009. We make it clear that the Tribunal shall dispose of the matter within another two months. (KURIAN JOSEPH) JUDGE (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) JUDGE spc