IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY MONDAY, THE 13TH DECEMBER 2010 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA 1932 OP (CAT).No. 520 of 2010(S) --------------------------- OA.305/2010 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER/6TH RESPONDENT IN OA MANZOOR B.P., S/O.LATE SULAIMAN A.C., AGED 24 YEARS, BELIPURA HOUSE, KADAMAT ISLAND, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.R.REJI SMT.THARA THAMBAN SRI.B.BIPIN SMT.REVATHY P.NAIR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5 IN O.A. & APPLICANT IN THE O.A 1. THE ADMINISTRATOR, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATTI. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATTI ISLAND. 3. AMMER BIN MOHAMMED C.N., S/O.POCKUTTY MOHAMMED KOYA, BAITHUL AMMER (H), KAVARATTI ISLAND. 4. K.SHOUK, S/O.BAMBAN, KOCHADAM HOUSE, KAVARATTI ISLAND. 5. MOHAMMED KHALEEL P., S/O.AHAMMED P.C., THIRUVATHAPURA (H), AGATTI ISLAND. 6. AJMAL KHAN.V., S/O.V.T.NALLAKOYA, VALIYA ILLAM HOUSE, AGATTI ISLAND, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP. ADV. SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,SC,LAKSHADWEEP ADMN FOR R1 & 2 SRI. ARUN RAJ FOR R3 TO R5 SRI.C.KHALID FOR R6 SRI.N.GOPINATHA PANICKER FOR R6 SRI.T.P.SAJID FOR R6 SMT.P.VANDANA FOR R6 SMT.P.S.MAHESWARI FOR R6 THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF O.A. NO.305/2010 FILED BY R6. P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT ON 8.9.2010 FILED BY R6(IN O.A.). P3: TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT DT.23.6.2010 FILED BY THE LAKSHADWEEP ADMINISTRATOR. P4: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DT.23.9.2010 IN O.A. NO.305/2010. P5: TRUE COPY OF SELECT LIST DT.26.10.2010. P6: TRUE COPY OF ORDER F.NO.1/8/87-ESTT.(POL) DT.24.1.2009. TRUE COPY PS TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ. .................................................................... O.P.(CAT) No.520 of 2010 .................................................................... Dated this the 13th day of December, 2010. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. The O.P. is filed challenging the order of the CAT holding that 6th respondent is entitled to be considered for appointment to the post of Sub Inspector of Police. The qualification required is Degree and then physical endurance. Even though notification issued inviting application for the post did not provide for any physical endurance test, the Superintendent of Police subsequently prescribed certain parameters for physical endurance test. Even though 6th respondent has the highest academic qualification and has passed all physical endurance test except the swimming test where his performance was not to the required level, he was rejected for this reason alone. When respondents 3 to 5 along with the petitioner got selected, the 6th respondent was not included in the list. The 6th respondent filed O.A. before the CAT stating that the criteria fixed for swimming test by the Superintendent of Police was without authority and, therefore, the O.P.(CAT) 520/2010 2 disqualification imposed on him is not tenable. The Tribunal accepted this and directed him to be included in the select list in which the 6th respondent came as first. After hearing counsel for the contesting parties and Standing Counsel appearing for the Lakshadweep Administration, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order of CAT because academically 6th respondent stood No.1 and even in physical endurance test, except minor variation he was qualified. The post of Sub Inspector of Police essentially requires intellectual abilities and, therefore, we feel academic qualification and other test qualification including physical fitness found should have precedence over efficiency in swimming. Since the 6th respondent has the highest marks and has passed all the physical endurance test except little shortage in the swimming test, we are of the view that the Tribunal rightly upheld his claim and the Lakshadweep Administration has accepted the order of the CAT. However, this is a case where petitioner also got selected initially and only when his case was considered against the claim of 6th respondent, he happened to be out of the list. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are two more O.P.(CAT) 520/2010 3 vacancies still existing and so much so, he should be considered for appointment as he is the next candidate in the list and in the original list of candidates selected, he figured No.4. If vacancies are there and since the petitioner was already in the list of selected candidates, we feel the Administrator can consider his appointment. Pending consideration of the petitioner's case, the other four selected candidates should be appointed and if vacancy is there, it is upto the Administrator to take the petitioner also as the 5th candidate in the list of selected candidates. Since the matter was dragged on account of the litigation, we direct respondents 1 and 2 to fill up the vacancies without any delay. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge BHABANI PRASAD RAY Judge pms