IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 23RD OCTOBER 2008 / 1ST KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 1 of 2005(A) ---------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- NETTICADAN ANTONIO, INSPECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE COCHIN, RESIDING AT 1/433, BURGER STREET, KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS SRI.PAUL JACOB (P) SRI.ROSHEN.D.ALEXANDER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAW, NEW DELHI. 2. CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE & CUSTOMS, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN 3. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KERALA ZONE, C.R.BUILDINGS, I.S.PRESS ROAD, COCHIN-18. 4. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE COCHIN COMMISSIONERATE, C.R.BUILDINGS, I.S.PRESS ROAD, COCHIN-18. 5. ANAND KUMAR J., SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHERTHALA RANGE, CHERTHALA. ADV. SRI.JOHN VARGHESE, ASSISTANT SG FOR R1 TO 4 SRI.C.S.MANILAL FOR R5 SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R1 TO 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/10/2008, THE COURT ON 23/10/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.1/2005 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF the OREDER OF APPOINTMENT OF THE PETITIONER AS INSPECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE NO.120/88 DATED 20/09/88. P2 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17/12/93 NO.235/93. P3 : COPY OF THE O.M. NO.36012/17/88-ESTT. DATED 25/04/1989. P4 : COPY OF THE O.M. NO.36012/18/95-ESTT.(RES.) Pt.II DATED 13/08/97. P5 : COPY OF THE OM NO.20011/1/96-ESTT.(D) DATED 30/01/97. P6 : COPY OF THE O.M.NO.20011/1/2001/ESTT. DATED 21/01/2002. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------- WP(C) No. 1 of 2005 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 23rd day of October, 2008 J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner in this writ petition challenges the constitutional validity of Article 16(4A) as also Exts. P4 and P6 orders of the Central Government issued purportedly on the strength of Sub Article 4A of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Now, it is common case that the validity of Sub Article 4A of Article 16 has been upheld by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in M.Nagaraj & Others Vs. Union of India & Others, reported in 2006 (8) SCC 212. 2. If the petitioner is aggrieved by Exts.P4 and P6 orders, his remedy lies before the Central Administrative Tribunal. This Court cannot consider the validity of them at the first instance. In the result, the writ petition fails and it WP(C) No.1/2005 -2- is dismissed. But this will not affect the rights, if any, of the petitioner to challenge Exts.P4 and P6 orders before the CAT. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jg