IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2007 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1929 WP(C).No. 32596 of 2004(S) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SADU V.K., PURANILKUNATHIL HOUSE, MUTTATHUKONAM P.O., ELAVUMTHITTA, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.LIJU.V.STEPHEN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, NEW DELHI. 2. THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL, KERALA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE POSTMASTER GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, NORTHERN REGION, KERALA CIRCLE, CALICUT. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, PATHANAMTHITTA DIVISION, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/12/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC.NO.32596/2004 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 COPY OF THE LETTER DTD 4.10.2000 TO THE PETITIONER FROM R4 AC/CG EGIS/2000-01. EXT.P2 COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT NO.79 DTD 10.8.01. EXT.P3 COPY OF THE LETTER D.O.NO.WLF/2-73/2000 DTD 2.8.2000. EXT.P4 COPY OF THE WRITTEN CONSENT FILED BY NALINI TO R4 DTD 16.10.2000. EXT.P4(a) COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P4 EXT.P5 COPY OF THE LETTER DOCR/F2/11-29/00-01 DTD 20.2.01 BY R4 TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P6 COPY OF THE LETTER NO.B3/REL.RECTT/5/2000 DTD 30.4.01 TO THE PETITINER BY R4. EXT.P7 COPY OF THE ORDER IN OA.701/2001 DTD 9.8.01 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P8 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.29526/01 DTD 3.10.02 OF THIS COURT. EXT.P9 COPY OF THE LETTER (ORDER) NO.B-3/REL.RECTT/5 DTD 17.7..03 FROM R4 TO PETITIONER. EXT.P10 COPY OF THE ORDER IN OA.178/04 DTD 10.9.04 OF CAT, ERNAKULAM. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R4(a) COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE SUB DIVISIONAL INSPECTOR, POSTS, PUNALUR DTD 26.7.2000. EXT.R4(b) COPY OF THE LETTER DTD 26.7.2000 SUBMITTED BY SMT.NALINI TO THE POSTAL DEPARTMENT. EXT.R4(C) ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.R4(b) DTD 26.7.2000. EXT.R4(d) COPY OF THE LETTER DTD 26.7.2000 SUBMITTED BY SADHU V.K. TO R4. EXT.R4(e) ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.R4(d) DTD 26.7.2000. /TRUE COPY/ cl K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N. RAVINDRAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.32596 OF 2004-S ------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of December, 2007. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J: The petitioner was an applicant for appointment under the dying in harness scheme. The brief facts of the case are the following: The petitioner's father late Kamalasana Panicker was a Postman, who died in harness on 23.7.2000 leaving behind his mother Sumathi and another sister. His sister is already married. On the death of his father, the petitioner claimed the terminal benefits. At that time, one Smt. Nalini came forward claiming that she is the wife of late Kamalasana Panicker and she has a daughter born out of that wedlock. At the instance of the Superintendent of Post Office, there was a compromise between the two families and as per the said settlement, major share of the terminal benefits and family pension were disbursed to Smt.Nalini. A portion of the terminal benefits and the right to get employment under the dying in harness scheme were alloted to the share of the WPC.NO.32596/2004 . 2 petitioner's family. The petitioner applied for employment under the dying in harness scheme. The said application was rejected. He, therefore, moved the C.A.T seeking appropriate reliefs. The said original application was dismissed by Ext.P7 order. He challenged the said order before this Court. This Court by Ext.P8 judgment overruled all the objections of the respondents therein and held that the petitioner is liable to be considered for employment under the dying in harness scheme. But, it was clarified that though the petitioner is eligible to be considered, he is entitled to get employment only subject to availability of the vacancies and in the absence of more eligible candidates. The respondents considered his claim. Since there were candidates more eligible for the limited number of vacancies, the petitioner's application was rejected by Ext.P9. The petitioner challenged Ext.P9 proceedings before the C.A.T and the said O.A was dismissed by Ext.P10. This writ petition is filed challenging Exts. P9 and P10. The petitioner points out the plight of his family and claims that he should have been provided with the appointment. His claim was wrongly overruled. So, he prays for quashing of Exts.P9 and P10 and for appropriate consequential orders. WPC.NO.32596/2004 . 3 2. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit resisting the prayers in the writ petition. They denied the claim of the petitioner that there was a compromise between the parties at the instance of the Superintendent of Post Office, Pathanamthitta. The respondents also submitted that on a comparative evaluation of the claims of the other applicants, since they were other better claimants for the limited number of vacancies, the petitioner's claim was rejected. Along with the counter affidavit, they have produced Exts.R4(a) to R4(d) documents. Ext.R4(d) runs counter to the claim of the petitioner regarding the status of Smt.Nalini. But, the petitioner would point out that Ext.R4(d) was obtained by holding out a promise to give him employment. So, he was constrained to give that statement. Heard the learned counsel on both sides. We noticed that the petitioner's claim was rejected on the ground that there were other candidates, who were more eligible. We find no reason to disbelieve the statement of the respondents in this regard. The petitioner does not have any allegations of malafides against the competent authority, which considered the petitioner's application. The Tribunal also felt that it is not a case warranting interference WPC.NO.32596/2004 . 4 with the decision of the authorities. There is nothing on record to show that the persons preferred for appointment are affluent or financially better placed than the writ petitioner. Having regard to the limited number of vacancies and availability of persons with superior claim, if it is decided to reject the claim of the applicant, this Court cannot interfere with the said decision. It is true that the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the persons, who were preferred were more affluent than the petitioner, there is no material before us to sustain the above submission. In view of the above position, this writ petition is dismissed. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. cl WPC.NO.32596/2004 . 5 WPC.NO.32596/2004 . 6