IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 11TH OCTOBER 2011 / 19TH ASWINA 1933 OP (CAT).No. 3237 of 2011(Z) ---------------------------- OA.37/2010 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER --------------------- K.T.FRANCIS, SEAMAN, CUSTOMS PREVENTIVE UNIT, BEYPORE, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001. 2. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS, I.S.PRESS ROAD, KOCHI-682 018. 3. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS, I.S.PRESS ROAD, KOCHI-682 018. 4. PROMOD NAIR, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (MARINE), OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS(PREVENTIVE), CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS, I.S.PRESS ROAD, KOCHI-682 018. 5. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE. 6. A.O.RAJEEV, SENIOR DECK HAND, SEA PATROLLING UNIT, BEYPORE, KOZHIKODE. ADV. SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL,SC,CB EX FOR R1,3&5 THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.NO.37/2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE C.A.T., ERNAKULAM BENCH. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT IN O.A.NO.37/2010 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS BEFORE THE C.A.T., ERNAKULAM BENCH. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER IN O.A.NO.37/2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE C.A.T., ERNAKULAMO BENCH. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.8.2011 IN O.A.NO.37/2010 OF THE C.A.T., ERNAKULM BENCH. /TRUE COPY/ PS TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Ag. CJ. & P.S.GOPINATHAN, J ---------------------------------------------- O.P(CAT).No. 3237 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT Heard counsel for the petitioner. We have also gone through the impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal. 2. Grievance of the petitioner is that he was not given promotion by the Customs Commissionerate for the reason that one of the members of the interview body constituted was not qualified. The applicant, after retirement from the Indian Navy, was re-employed in the Customs Department, wherein he was assigned ministerial work. However, when a post of Senior Deck Hand arose, the applicant was called for interview. The interview board did not select the petitioner, but selected the 6th respondent. It is against this order that the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.No.37 of 2010, which was dismissed. This Original Petition is filed challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal. OP(CAT).3237/11 2 3. After hearing counsel for the petitioner and after going through the order of the Tribunal, what we notice is that the main grievance of the petitioner is that one of the three members in the interview board constituted should have been a Marine Officer from the Commissionerate of Preventive Operations and instead of the officer from the Preventive Department, the Marine Officer, who interviewed the petitioner along with others, was from the same Commissionerate. Petitioner has no case that the Marine Officer from the Commissionerate, who was a member of the interview board, is not qualified. However, his case is that when the Marine Officer from the same Commissionerate is included in the interview board, there is likelihood of bias. However, the petitioner has no case that the other two members in the interview board, who are also from the same Commissionerate, are biased. Bias is a matter, which has to be proved through evidence. So long as the members of the interview board are qualified to make selection, we do not think it makes any difference whether the member is from one wing or another of the same department. We notice that the Tribunal considered all the OP(CAT).3237/11 3 contentions in detail and found no merit in the petitioner's case. We see no reason to interfere with the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Original Petition is accordingly dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE vgs