IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2009 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 12460 of 2007(S) -------------------------- OA.174/2006 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER: --------------- S.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, INVESTIGATION AGENCY, KERALA LOK AYUKTA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI SRI.R.SREEDHARAN NAIR SMT.SABINA JAYAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NEW DELHI. 4. THE SELECTION COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED UNDER REGULATION 3 OF THE IPS APPOINTMENT BY PROMOTION REGULATIONS 1955 REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN UPSC, NEW DELHI. 5. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. E.J.JAYARAJ, COMMANDANT, KERALA ARMED POLICE, III BN, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. SR.GOVT.PLEADER, SRI.BENNY GERVASIS FOR R2 & R5. ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, CGC FOR R1, R3 & R5 SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN FOR R6 SRI.S.RAJ MOHAN FOR R6 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.12460/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.1-14011/11/98-IPS.I DATED 29.10.1998 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.174/2006 FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM BENCH BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE 2ND & 5TH RESPONDENT IN O.A.NO.174/2006. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT IN O.A.NO.174/2006. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION SUBMITTED ALONG WITH M.A.NO.76/2007. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE ORDER DT.24.2.2007 IN O.A.NO.174/2007 OF THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.12460 OF 2007 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of May, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioner, who was a Superintendent of Police, filed O.A.No.174/2006, challenging the appointment of the 6th respondent to the post of Indian Police Service in 1998 and also seeking a direction to consider his claim for appointment to I.P.S. in the year 2004. The prayers in the Original Application were the following: “I. Call for the records leading to and culminating in Annexure-A8 and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and opposed to the principles of equity and fair play. II. Direct the respondents 1 to 4 to consider the applicant's case for conferment of IPS for the year 2004 forthwith including the vacancy of the 6th respondent for the year 2004. III. Award costs to the applicant.” W.P(C).No.12460/2007 2 2. Annexure-A8 is the order, as per which, the 6th respondent was appointed to Indian Police Service. The case of the petitioner was that the 6th respondent, who is a Commandant of the Kerala Armed Police, was ineligible to be considered for appointment to I.P.S. If he was not considered, a member of the General Executive Wing of the Kerala Police would have been considered. Had that person been appointed, he would have retired in 2004 and the petitioner would have got a chance for being considered in that vacancy. The Tribunal dismissed the Original Application by Ext.P6 order. Challenging that order and seeking consequential reliefs, this Writ Petition was filed. 3. The Original Application was filed in 2006 challenging the appointment of the 6th respondent made in 1998. The petitioner is guilty of delay and laches and further the Original Application is barred by limitation laid down in Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Therefore, the Original Application was rightly dismissed. We notice that the Tribunal has chosen to consider the claim of the applicant on merits also. The petitioner, who admittedly became qualified only in 2004, W.P(C).No.12460/2007 3 cannot raise any grievance against the appointment of the 6th respondent made in 1998. For that reason alone, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed and we do so. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) ps