IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2009 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 9339 of 2009(S) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13 /03/2009 IN RA NOS.21 & 20/2009 IN OA.114/2008 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER: --------------- BIJU PRABHAKAR, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, DIRECTORATE OF SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS, VAZHUTHAKKAD, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.KRB.KAIMAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAININNG, MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSION, NEW DELHI. 2. UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, UPSC, SHAJAHAN ROAD, NEW DELHI. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM. 4. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (SPECIAL -A) DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. 5. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (REVENUE), DEPARTMENT OF REVENE, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. WPC 9339/2009 6. SMT.T.M. SUDHA, SENIOR TOWN PLANNER, TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF KERALA, RESIDING AT `SRI' T.C 11/486-1, NATHEN NAGAR, KOWDIAR.P.O, TRIVANDRUM. 7. P. PUSHPARAJ, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF SURVEY, PATHANAMTHITTA, RESIDING AT VADAKKEVILA VEEDU, KUTHIRAKULAM.P.O, VEMBAYAM, TRIVANDRUM. ADV. SRI.GEORGE JOSEPH,SC,UPSC FOR R2 SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL – R1 GOVT. PLEADER SMT.R.BINDU FOR R3 TO R5 SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR FOR R6 SRI.R.SREERAJ FOR R7 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.9339 OF 2009-S ----------------------------------------- Dated 31st March, 2009. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner challenges Ext.P1 common order in R.A.Nos.21 and 20 of 2009 in O.A.No.114/2008 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. 2. The brief facts of the case are the following: The applicant in O.A.No.114/2008 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench is the writ petitioner. He was an employee of Hindustan Latex Limited. By order dated 6.5.1996, he was appointed as Technical Officer (Chemical) in the Department of Factories and Boilers, on deputation. Later, overruling the objections of the Kerala Public Service Commission, he was regularised in that post on 27.11.2000 by the State Government. Still later, he was selected and appointed to the post of Deputy Collector in the Kerala Civil Service, on the advice of the Public Service Commission on 21.8.2006. The claim of the petitioner for inclusion in the zone of consideration for appointment to I.A.S for the year 2007 from among the WPC 9339/2009 2 officers under the State Government, not belonging to the Kerala Civil Service, but working in posts equivalent to the post of Deputy Collector, was considered by the Chief Secretary, as per the direction of this Court and rejected. Challenging that order, the Original Application was filed. The Tribunal allowed the O.A. The respondents 6 and 7 filed Review Applications in that O.A., seeking review of the order dated 29.8.2008 passed in the O.A. In the meantime, in obedience to the direction of the CAT, the petitioner was considered for appointment to I.A.S and in fact, he was selected and appointed in the year 2008. 3. The Tribunal after hearing both sides, allowed the above Review Applications, recalled its order in O.A.No.114/2008 dated 29.8.2008 and posted the said O.A for re-hearing. Taking note of the fact that the petitioner was appointed to I.A.S in the meantime, the Tribunal observed that it was for the official respondents to review his selection at their discretion and in the exigencies of service. Challenging that part of the order, the 6th respondent herein filed W.P.(C) No.9209/2009 before this Court. This Court declined to interfere with the said direction, but clarified that the applicant's continuance will not, in any way, affect the contentions of the petitioner therein at the time of re-hearing of the O.A. 4. Now, this Writ Petition is filed by the applicant in the O.A., WPC 9339/2009 3 challenging the common order in the Review Applications, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P1. 5. We heard the learned senior counsel Mr.K.R.B.Kaimal, appearing for the petitioner, at length. We are satisfied that the review was allowed on valid grounds and the claim of the petitioner/applicant for selection to I.A.S has to be considered, taking note of the contentions raised on behalf of the review applicants, who are respondents 6 and 7 herein. We do not propose to deal with those contentions on merits, as the same is likely to prejudice one side or the other, when the O.A is re-heard by the Tribunal. But, the learned senior counsel pointed out that the direction of the Tribunal to leave the fate of the petitioner, pending re-hearing of the O.A., to the discretion of the official respondents, is not justified. The Tribunal should have allowed the petitioner to continue till the matter is re-heard by it. The learned senior counsel also brought to our notice the inconvenience that will be caused to the petitioner, if he is reverted and also the balance of convenience. On this point, we heard the learned counsel Mr.P.B.Suresh Kumar, appearing for the 6th respondent and Mr.R.Sreeraj, appearing for the 7th respondent. We are of the view that the petitioner should be allowed to continue provisionally in the present post, till the O.A is re-heard by the Tribunal. We agree with the contention of the learned senior counsel WPC 9339/2009 4 regarding the inconvenience that will be caused to the petitioner, if such a direction is not issued. So, we order that the petitioner shall be allowed to continue in the I.A.S cadre provisionally, till the O.A is finally heard and disposed of by the CAT. His continuance will not affect the contentions of the contesting respondents. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE. nm/