IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 24TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 28132 of 2010(S) -------------------------- OP.691/2009 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. THE CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, 14 BHIKAJI CAMA PALACE, NEW DELHI. 2. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SMT T.N.GIRIJA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. JAI GOPAL.S., S/O.N.G.S. MENON, SENIOR SOCIAL SECURITY ASSISTANT EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, KOCHI, RESIDING AT JAI VIHAR, NAYARAMBALAM, KOCHI - 682 509. 2. K.PADMAKUMAR, S/O.VASUDEVAN NAIR, SENIOR SOCIAL SECURITY ASSISTANT EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, KOZHIKODE. RESIDING AT 'CHAITHANYA', WEST HILL, KOZHIKODE. 3. UNION OF INDIA - REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT, NEW DELHI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/09/2010, ALONG WITH WPC 28133 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. Nos. 28132 & 28133 of 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. The orders under challenge in these two Writ Petitions are interim orders issued by the Tribunal directing the petitioners to permit the respondents to participate in the examination for appointment to a promotion post. Petitioners have a case that respondents are not eligible. However, we do not think petitioner's stand is in any way affected on account of interim orders issued by the Tribunal permitting the respondents to write the examination. If after examination is over, the Tribunal finds that respondents are eligible, then the denial of opportunity to the respondents to participate in the examination could be made good by the Tribunal directing fresh examination. We feel the petitioners should avoid such a contingency. We do not therefore find any grievance for the petitioners because Tribunal has specifically stated in one of the interim orders under challenge that appointment or follow up action after publication of result will be only after disposal of WPC 28132 & 28133/2010 2 the O.A. While dismissing the Writ Petitions, we direct the Tribunal to take up the matter at the earliest and dispose of the same without any delay because appointment of other persons who have participated in the examination and whose eligibility is not under contest should not be delayed on account of cases filed by some others. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (K. SURENDRA MOHAN) Judge. kk WPC 28132 & 28133/2010 3