IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 9TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 18TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 27432 of 2010(S) -------------------------- OA.389/2010 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHERSHAD KHAN.M, MARAL HOUSE, KALPENI, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP. BY ADV. SRI.RAJU JOSEPH, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.C.N.MIDHUN SRI.SOJAN JAMES RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE ADMINISTRATOR, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATTI-682 555. 2. THE SECRETARY (EDUCATION), DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATTI-682 555. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATTI-682 555. 4. THE PRINCIPAL, DISTRICT INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATTI-682 555. 5. NOORUL HASSAN.U, UMMARODA HOUSE, KAVARATTI ISLAND, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP-682 555. 6. BUSHRA.K, U.D.CLERK, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, KAVARATTI, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP-682 555. 7. NOORUL HUDA.S.M, S/O.POOKOYA MERIYAMMADA, SUHARA MANZIL, ANDROTT, LAKSHADWEEP-682 555. ADV. SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, SC FOR R1 TO R4 ADV. SRI.ARUN RAJ FOR R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF OA DT.17.5.2010 WITH ANNEXURES. P2: TRUE COPY OF INTERIM APPLICATION DT.7.6.2010 FILED BY R7 FOR IMPLEADMENT. P3: TRUE COPY OF REPLY FILED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS 1-4 DT.22.6.2010. P4: TRUE COPY OF REPLY FILED BY PETITIONER DT.15.6.2010. P5: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT/ORDER IN OA 389/2010 DT.5.8.2010. TRUE COPY PS TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.27432 of 2010 .................................................................... Dated this the 9th day of September, 2010. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. The only question raised in the W.P.(C) filed by the petitioner is whether the C.A.T. was justified in holding that even after amendment of the Recruitment Rules three years' experience is required for direct recruitees. The rival parties before us are both from the same stream of direct recruitees. While the applicant in the O.A. is a Postgraduate with three years teaching experience, the petitioner herein who was selected in the course of selection pursuant to notification, is a M.Phil. holder, which qualification is given preference under the amended Rules. However, since the petitioner herein did not have teaching experience, his selection was questioned before the C.A.T. and the C.A.T. found that in the original Rules three years' experience is mandatory for selection to the post of Lecturer (Hindi). Standing Counsel appearing for the Union Territory of Lakshadweep Administration submitted that there is omission in the amendment in as 2 much as experience was not simultaneously deleted when preferential qualification was introduced. We do not think there is any need for us to consider the omissions in the amendment because the Rule with the amendment produced still provide for three years experience as a requirement for eligibility. All what C.A.T. said is that even after the amendment experience is not dispensed with and is retained as a required qualification for eligibility for appointment. So much so, we find no ground to interfere with the finding of the C.A.T. Even though petitioner has raised a contention that the 5th respondent does not have the required qualification, we do not think there is any need to consider it because the Tribunal has only ordered fresh selection and it is upto the concerned authority to consider eligibility and relative merits of all candidates in fresh selection process. The W.P.(C) is, therefore, dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge HARUN-UL-RASHID Judge pms