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 8TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 17TH KARTHIKA 1932 OP (CAT).No. 497 of 2010(S) --------------------------- OA.363/2009 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER: -------------------- BABY MATHEW, S/O.MATHEW, AGED 50 YEARS NOW RESIDING AT KANIYAMKANDATHIL HOUSE PURAPUZHA PO, THODUPOUZHA, WORKING FITTER AUTO HS, MATERIAL ORGANIZATION, NAVAL BASE, KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.SHAIJAN JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. FLAG OFFICER COMMANDING IN CHEIF HEAD QUARTERS, SOUTHERN NAVAL COMMAND,KOCHI. 2. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER GRADE II STAFF OFFICER,SOUTHERN NAVAL COMMAND, KOCHI. ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI FOR R1,2 THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, & BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ. -------------------------------------------- O.P. (CAT) No. 497 of 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard counsel for the petitioner and we have also gone through the impugned order of the Tribunal, namely Ext.P10. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was not given promotion as Chargeman II even though he passed the trade test on 8.8.2003. However, the finding of the Tribunal after considering the objections of the respondents is that pursuant to the earlier test one Sri. Dhanaraj was appointed who was admittedly senior to the petitioner. The next vacancy arose in 2008 and at that time, petitioner was not qualified because Annexure R2 amended rules came into force. According to these rules, 8 years experience and pass in the trade test are required. Since petitioner does not have the qualification, inasmuch as he lacks experience, the third respondent who was senior to the petitioner and qualified for promotion was promoted . Petitioner appears to challenge the authority of respondents 1 and 2 to amend rules on promotion. Even though OP(CAT) 497/2010 2 petitioner's contention is that amended rules are introduced to defeat the claim of the petitioner, we do not find any substance in it. In fact, the two persons whose promotions are referred to above, were admittedly senior to petitioner and were qualified. Petitioner does not deny want of 8 years experience for promotion. So much so, we find no merit in the challenge against the Tribunal's order. Consequently O.P. is dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (BHABANI PRASAD RAY) Judge. kk OP(CAT) 497/2010 3