IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2009 / 13TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 3425 of 2009(S) ------------------------------------- (OA.511/2008 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH) .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- ZAFEER C.N., AGED 21 YEARS, S/O. OF CHERIYA KOYA, CHERIYANALLAL HOUSE, KALAPENI ISLAND, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP. BY ADV. MR.N.ANILKUMAR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATTI. 2. THE COLLECTOR/ DEPARTMENT COMMISSIONER, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATHI. BY MR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, S.C, FOR LAKSHADWEEP. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/02/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K.Balakrishnan Nair & P.N.Ravindran, JJ. ================================ W.P.(C) Nos.3425 of 2009 ====================== Dated this the 13th day of March, 2009. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair,J. The petitioner was the applicant in Ext.P1 Original Application. The Original Application was filed challenging Annexure A1 notification issued by the second respondent inviting applications to the post of Deputy Surveyor/ Draftsman. He also prays that he may be appointed to the said post. The above claim is based on the fact that he is a physically challenged person suffering from more than 40% disability. The Tribunal said that the appointments, if any, will be subject to the result of the Original Application. The said order was passed in the application moved by him. Dissatisfied with that interim order, this Writ Petition is filed. 2. We heard Sri.S.Radhakrishnan, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. We feel that the order passed by the Tribunal is sufficient to safeguard the interest of the petitioner. There is no point in putting the entire selection process and appointments on hold pending adjudication of the claim raised by the applicant/writ petitioner. If ultimately the claim of the petitioner is upheld, the Tribunal has powers to pass consequential orders to redress his grievance. WP(C) 3425/09 -: 2 :- Therefore, we feel that it is not necessary to interfere with the interim order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. K.Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess 19/3