IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI MONDAY, THE 21ST MARCH 2011 / 30TH PHALGUNA 1932 OP (CAT).No. 80 of 2011 (S) ----------------------------------------- OA.1069/2010 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... APPLICANT: -------------------- REMYA S.L, D/O. SURESAN, SREE RAGAM, T.C.3/386 (3) MUTTADA-P.O., KAWADYAR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL KERALA CIRCLE,TRIVANDRUM. 2. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT DEPARTMENT OF POST, INDIA OFFICE OF THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT RMS 'TV' DIVISION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. NEETHU VIJAYAN D/O.VIJAYAN, VIJAYA MANDIRAM MODAVOORPARA,BALARAMAPURAM-P.O, TRIVANDRUM-695 501. ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN, ASST.S.G. OF INDIA FOR R1 & 2 THIS O.P.(CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P.(CAT)No.80 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21st day of March 2011 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. Petitioner had appeared for the qualifying examination for recruitment to the Cadre of Sorting Assistant in the Railway Mail Service, 'TV' Division, Trivandrum. Though the petitioner secured 81 marks in the examination, she was not included in the provisional select list since her application form was defective in as much as she had failed to attest the community certificate (OBC) produced along with the application as stipulated in the instructions given in the prospectus. The non- inclusion was challenged by the petitioner before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. However, the Tribunal dismissed the original application justifying the action of the Department. The said order is under challenge in this writ petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. When this Original Petition came up for consideration on January 14, 2011, we passed the following order after hearing learned counsel on both sides: “Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, particularly the nature of the defect noticed in the application form submitted by the petitioner, we are of the view that the authorities concerned may be directed to permit the petitioner to attend the training provisionally and subject to further orders in the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is prepared to attend the training at her own risk. He further submits that the petitioner will not stake any claim for appointment, if ultimately it turns out that there is no vacancy to accommodate her. The petitioner shall give such an undertaking to the authority concerned before commencement of the training, in which event she shall be allowed to attend the training programme.” 3. Subsequently by order dated February 11, 2011 we were informed that the Department had directed the petitioner to remit the fee for training. This condition was also fulfilled by the petitioner by depositing the requisite fee. It is O.P.(CAT)No.80 OF 2011 :: 2 :: the admitted position that the petitioner has also given the undertaking before the department. 4. The learned Assistant Solicitor General, after getting instructions from the department, submits that the Induction Training of Sorting Assistants for the first batch of 23 out of the 54 selected candidates has already commenced in Mysore. The said training session for 55 days is scheduled to close on March 24, 2011. He further submits that one more training session is scheduled to commence in Mysore on March 28, 2011 and for yet another batch at a centre in Kerala from April 4, 2011. He further submits that the petitioner will be deputed for training in one of these two batches as directed by this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the petitioner may be permitted to attend the training session that is likely to be held in Kerala. Learned Assistant Solicitor General submits that there may not be any practical difficulty in allowing the petitioner to do so. 6. In the peculiar fact and circumstances, the above prayer is allowed. It is reiterated that the permission granted to the petitioner to participate in the training session at her own cost will not confer any right on her to claim appointment, if no vacancy arises to the post. But if any vacancy arises, the department shall appoint the petitioner as a special case. The writ petition is closed. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE jes