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 6TH OCTOBER 2008 / 14TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 29124 of 2008(S) -------------------------- OA.654/2006 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INFORMATION & BROADCASTING, SASTHRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI 110 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, CIVIL CONSTUCTION WING, ALL INDIA RADIO, SOOCHANA BHAWAN, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. AJAYAKUMAR D, ASSISTANT ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL), CIVIL CONSTRUCTION WING A.I.R., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 014. 2. A.B. DAS, ASSISTANT ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL), OFFICE OF HE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECT), CIIL CONSTRUCTION WING, ALL INDIA RADIO, DOOORADARSAN BHAWAN GOLF GREE, CALCUTA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, J J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.29124 of 2008 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 6th day of October, 2008 J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The respondents 1 & 2 in O.A.No.654/2006, are the writ petitioners. The applicant in the original application is the 1st respondent herein. Third respondent therein is the 2nd respondent herein. Both the respondents were junior engineers with Diploma in Civil Engineering working under the writ petitioners. Next promotion post of them is Assistant Engineer. As per the recruitment Rules, a Junior Engineer with Diploma in Civil Engineering is entitled to be considered for promotion on completion of eight years regular service in that grade, whereas a Junior Engineer with degree in Civil Engineering is entitled to be considered for promotion on his completion of five years regular service in that grade. The respondents 1 & 2 joined the cadre of Junior Engineer on 01/12/1981 and 01/11/1983 respectively. While in service, the 2nd respondent acquired decree qualification in Civil Engineering in 1988. Soon thereafter, he was promoted as Assistant Engineer on 27/07/1989. He has not completed WP(C) No.29124/2008 -2- eight years service in the cadre of Junior Engineer and he has not completed five years service after the acquisition of decree. Total service rendered by him was six years, out of which, five years' service was as a diploma holder and one year's service was as a degree holder. So the first respondent complained that the promotion of his junior, the 2nd respondent herein, was not in accordance with the Recruitment Rules. He contended that the five years service of a degree holder should be after acquisition of degree. The said claim of the applicant / 1st respondent is covered by the decision of the Apex Court in A.K.Raghumani Singh Vs. Gopal Chandra Nath, reported in 2000(4) SCC 30. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the contention of the first respondent applicant relying on the said decision of the Apex Court and allowed the O.A. Reliance was also placed on another order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.549/01, which was also dealing with a similar matter. The order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in that original application is made subject to the orders in a Special Leave Petition in a similar matter pending before the Apex Court. So the present original application was allowed by the CAT by Ext.P1. It was made WP(C) No.29124/2008 -3- subject to the outcome of the aforementioned Special Leave Petition also. So the writ petitioners cannot have any grievance against the order of the CAT. Everyone is bound by the declaration of law made by the Apex Court. The Tribunal only followed the law declared by the Honourable Supreme Court. So, we cannot comprehend why the writ petitioners have rushed to this Court challenging the order of the CAT. The official respondent cannot be in any way aggrieved by the interpretation of the rule made by the CAT, following the decision of the Apex Court. If anybody is aggrieved, it is the 2nd respondent. In view of the above position, this writ petition is an abuse of process of the Court and accordingly, it is dismissed in limine. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jg