IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 20TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 1139 of 2009(S) ------------------------- O.A.NO. 565/07 OF THE C.A.T., ERNAKULAM BENCH PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.PANKAJAKSHAN, 51 YEARS, S/O.PATTU, CRANE OPERATOR GR.II/DIESEL SHED SOUTHERN RAILWAY/ERNAKULAM SOUTH R/AT.BLOSSOMS KOSSERY LANE, PONEKKARA ROAD EDAPPALLY , COCHIN-682024., ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEADQUARTERS OFFICE, PARK TOWN PO., CHENNAI-3. 2. DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, TRIVANDRUM DN., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-14. 3. SHRI.K.A.NISHAD, TECHNICIAN GR.II, (DIESEL/ELECTRICAL) DIESEL LOCO SHED, SOUTHERN RAILWAY ERNAKULAM JN., COCHIN-16. 4. CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY,HEAD QUARTERS OFFICE, CHENNAI-3. BY SRI.N.B. SUNIL NATH, SC, RAILWAYS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).No. 1139 of 2009 S - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The applicant in O.A.No. 565 of 2007 is the writ petitioner. He is a Technician Gr.II under the respondents. He was working in the ex-cadre post of Crane Operator in the Loco Shed of Southern Railway, Ernakulam junction under the respondents. While so, the competent authority issued Annex.A1 notification calling for persons who are willing to be considered for appointment to the Ancillary ex-cadre post of Technician Grade II, which was held by the petitioner. 2. Challenging Annex.A1 and seeking other consequential reliefs, the Original Application was filed. During the pendency of the Original Application, the petitioner continued to work in the Ex-cadre post of Crane Operator Gr.II. The respondents resisted the application mainly relying on Annex.R3 dt.15.10.2001. The said order provided that the tenure in ex- W.P.(C).No. 1139 of 2009 2 cadre post can be only for a maximum period of four years and once the person working in the ex-cadre post is repatriated to the parent cadre, he can aspire for posting again in the ex-cadre post only after completing two years service in his parent post. The Tribunal accepted the contentions of the respondents and dismissed the application by Ext.P1. The candidate, who submitted his application for selection pursuant to Annex.A1, did not undergo selection process. He joined some other post in the meantime. Therefore the said selection procedure has become infructuous. 3. The petitioner now submits that the competent authority has issued a fresh notification dt.12.1.2009. He has also applied for the post. According to him, he is the only applicant who has submitted the application. 4. In view of the above subsequent developments, the petitioner submits that the validity of Ext.P1 need not be decided on merits. He need only require liberty to pursue his claim for the ex-cadre post on the strength of Annex.A5 dt.27.8.2004. According to him, Annex.A5 supersedes Annex.R3. W.P.(C).No. 1139 of 2009 3 5. We heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Whether the petitioner can apply pursuant to the new notification dt.12.1.2009 on the strength of Annex.A5 is a new case which has to be decided at the first instance on the judicial side by the Central Administrative Tribunal. Before that, the matter has to be considered by the department. If the petitioner's application is not entertained, he will be free to pursue his remedies. In that event, Ext.P1 order of the Tribunal will not affect the contentions of the writ petitioner, if they are raised based on Annex.A5. 6. With the above clarification, this writ petition is closed. (K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm