IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2011 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1933 OP (CAT).No. 4115 of 2011(Z) --------------------------------- TA.3/2008 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER: -------------- SARASWATHI, AGED 41 YEARS, C/O.K. AYYAPPAN, KANALIL HOUSE, P.O.KIZHATTUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.HARISH KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. NEHRU YUVA KENDRA SANGATHAN, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, 2ND FLOOR, SCOPE MINAR, LAXMI NAGAR, DISTRICT CENTER, VIKAS MARG, NEW DELHI-110 092. 2. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH AFFAIRS AND SPORTS, CENTRAL SECRETARIATE, NEW DELHI-110 001. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP (CAT).No. 4115 of 2011(Z) APPENDIX EXT. P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE ABOVE WRIT PETITION/TRANSFER APPLICATION DT.17.3.2005 FILED BY THE APPLICANT EXT. P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DT. 26.5.2010 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS EXT. P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 7.1.11 IN T.A.NO.3/2008 OF THE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE Manjula Chellur, Ag. C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P. (CAT) No. 4115 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Ramachandra Menon, J. The appellant approached this Court by filing a writ petition in the year 2005, being aggrieved of the steps taken by the respondents to cancel the notification issued in the year 1997 inviting application for the post in question and to proceed with further course of selection. 2. The prayers in the writ petition were as follows: “i. issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondent to make appointments to the post of Youth Co-ordinator under the 1st respondent from the rank list prepared pursuant to Ext.P1 and P2 forthwith. ii. to declare that the petitioner is fully qualified to be appointed as the Youth Co-ordinator under the 1st respondent pursuant to Ext.P1. iii. Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may be deem fit and proper. iv. Award the costs.” 3. After filing the matter before this Court, the writ petition happened to be transferred to the CAT, Ernakulam, O.P.(CAT) No. 4115 of 2011 -:2:- pursuant to which the matter was considered and finalised by the Tribunal declining interference as per Ext.P3 order dated 07.01.2011, which is under challenge. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is absolutely no rationale on the part of the respondents for having taken a 'U turn' after issuing the notification and making the persons like the appellant to compete for the post in question. It is also stated that pursuant to the selection process conducted earlier, the appellant was reportedly placed at rank No.18 in the select list and as such, there is every right to have appointed in respect of the placement in the rank list. 5. The factual position as above was sought to be rebutted by the respondents before the Tribunal by filing reply statement pointing out that the selection was never complete, nor was there any rank list prepared or published and that the idea and understanding of the applicant in this regard was quite wrong and misconceived. It was also pointed out that, after issuing notification, the steps taken by the respondents were intercepted by the Ministry for the reason that the process of O.P.(CAT) No. 4115 of 2011 -:3:- filling up of the vacancies was not in tune with the relevant procedure prescribed, particularly, by getting necessary sanction and clearance from the nodal Ministry. Several other incidental aspects were also stated, for intercepting the process including the complaints received from different corners with regard to the process of selection. It was in the said circumstance, that the ongoing steps were sought to be kept in abeyance and after getting necessary clearance, the posts were re-notified, when the petitioner/appellant sought to approach this Court; in turn getting the case transferred to CAT leading to Ext.P3 order. 6. Going by the materials on record, it is seen that the process of selection which was notified by the concerned respondent earlier was decided not be pursued further, in view of the instructions given by the Ministry referring to the non-satisfaction of the procedural formalities and such other relevant aspects. We find no reason to deprecate the steps taken by the respondents in this regard. That apart, the rights and liberties of the applicant to have appointed, based on the so called selection; especially in the light of the specific dispute O.P.(CAT) No. 4115 of 2011 -:4:- raised from the part of the respondents that selection was never complete as taken note of by the Tribunal while declining interference. Reliance is also sought to be placed on the decision rendered by the Apex Court holding that no vested right is conferred upon any select-lister person to have appointed, but for the opportunity to participate in the process of selection. The law in this regard is laid down by the Apex Court in unequivocal terms as per the decision reported in Shankasan-Dash v. Union of India [1991 (2) SLR 779 (Constitution Bench)]. This being the position, we find no reason to interfere with the verdict passed by the CAT. 7. Yet another aspect to be looked into is that, the appellant sought to challenge the proceedings by approaching this Court initially by filing the writ petition (which was subsequently transferred to the CAT) only in the year 2007. Ext.P1 notification was issued by the concerned respondent as early as in the year 1997 and even according to the appellant, the selection was conducted shortly thereafter. In other words, the appellant was virtually sleeping over her rights for nearly 7 to O.P.(CAT) No. 4115 of 2011 -:5:- 8 years. We find that the alleged cause of action had become stale and the appellant had no case at any point of time earlier, that the selection was being unduly prolonged or protracted due to some or other reason. There is no specific plea of malafides as well; nor has the same been established by any legally acceptable material. We find no reason to interfere. The Original Petition fails and the same is dismissed accordingly. Manjula Chellur, Ag. Chief Justice. P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge. ttb