IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD DECEMBER 2008 / 2ND POUSHA 1930 WA.No. 2498 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.26720/2008 Dated 17/12/2008 .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER ------------------------ P.B.SHAHARBAN, PUTHIYA VEETIL HOUSE, OPP.PANANCHERY LANE, KOORKENCHERY P.O. THRISSUR - 7. BY ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. SOUTHERN RAILWAYS, CHENNAI, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF COMMERCIAL MANAGER. 2. SENIOR DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAYS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. STATION MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, THRISSUR RAILWAY STATION, THRISSUR. 4. MOHANAN, AGED 46, S/O.RAMANKUTTY, MANNANKONATHU HOUSE, S.N.NAGAR, VADUKARA, THRISSUR. 5. P.A.LEELUKUTTAN, GENERAL SECRETARY, GENERAL WORKERS UNION, CITU, THRISSUR. 6. A.N.SUNIL, GENERAL SECRETARY, THRISSUR RAILWAY PARCEL AGENTS & WORKERS CONGRESS, INTUC, THRISSUR ADV. SRI.N.B.SUNIL NATH,SC, RAILWAYS FOR R1 TO R3 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & S.SIRI JAGAN, JJ -------------------------------------------------------------------- W.A.No.2498 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of December, 2008. J U D G M E N T THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,J Heard. This appeal is against the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge. 2. As evidenced by Ext.P1, there are three categories of parcel porters; permanent railway employees, licensed coolie porters and platform permit holders. These categories are engaged for handling parcels in the Railways. With the passage of time, there are disputes regarding entitlement to have the work. Ext.P1 judgment was issued directing that the conflicting claims have to be resolved and certain actions to be taken. Following this, it appears that the Railways had to finalise the contracts for which tenders were invited. Pending such consideration, Ext.P4 was issued, whereby the writ petitioner/appellant came to be entrusted with the loading and unloading of parcels at Thrissur Railway Station, for which, contract was yet to be fixed by the Railways. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner came to that status following any competition or with intimation to any other similar persons. It was an entrustment with no selection. Whatever that be, with the passage of time, Ext.P7 W.A.No.2498 of 2008 : 2 : has been drawn up, whereby the Divisional Commercial Manager, Thiruvananthapuram Central has proceeded to discharge the tender which was invited and scrutinised by the tender committee. In the commercial wisdom of the Railways, as noticed in Ext.P7, it was not found feasible to finalise the tender. In the aforesaid scenario, the learned Single Judge has issued the impugned interim order whereby the Divisional Railway Manager at Thiruvananthapuram has to proceed to auction the right to engage the labourers for parcel handling work at Thrissur. Therefore, until finalisation of the regular contract, the situation will be maintained by engaging some person who come out of a fair process of selection by competition, rather than the Railways continue with the petitioner, a person whose entry was without any selection process. We, therefore, do not find any jurisdictional error or injustice in the interim order. This appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed without prejudice to the contentions in the writ petition. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ab 4/12