IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2010 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 OP (CAT).No. 1170 of 2010(S) ---------------------------- (O.A. NO.794/2009 OF CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH.) PETITIONERS ------------------------------- 1. E.K.ULAHANNAN, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.KORA, HEAD SECURITY GUARD, COCHIN SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE (CSEZ) KAKKANAD, KOCHI - 682037 RESIDING AT: ENCHAKKATT HOUSE, KAKKAD, PIRAVOM, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. SABU THOMAS, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.(LATE) A.T.THOMAS, HEAD SECURITY GUARD, COCHIN SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE (CSEZ) KAKKANAD, KOCHI - 682037 RESIDING AT: AKKALEDATH HOUSE, PIRAMADOM P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA HOUSE, PIRAMADOM P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY SRIT.R.MOHANAKUMAR SRI.G.SHYAM RAJ RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY, NEW DELHI. 2. THE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, COCHIN SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE (CSEZ) GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY, KAKKANAD, KOCHI - 682037. 3. THE DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, COCHIN SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE (CSEZ) GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY, KAKKANAD, KOCHI - 682037. ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI FOR R1 TO 3 THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ. .................................................................... O.P.(CAT) No.1170 of 2010 .................................................................... Dated this the 15th day of December, 2010. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard counsel for the petitioners. Prayer in the O.P. is for direction to respondents to give promotion to the petitioners as Assistant Security Officers. On going through the Tribunal's order, we find that the qualification required for promotion is 8 years' service as Head Security Guard. Both the petitioners were promoted as Head Security Guards in the year 2009 and obviously they don't have the experience to make them eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Security Officer. The petitioners' case is that when there is no one eligible to be promoted, the post could be filled up by dispensing with the qualification. However, it is seen that respondents have appointed eligible people on contract basis. We do not find anything irregular in the respondents appointing eligible persons as Assistant Security Officers on contract basis. So long as petitioners are not qualified, they have no right to challenge contract employment at higher post. 2 We, therefore, agree with the view of the Tribunal and consequently dismiss the O.P.(CAT). C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge BHABANI PRASAD RAY Judge pms