IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2010 / 27TH ASWINA 1932 OP (CAT).No. 322 of 2010() -------------------------- OA.259/2008 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER: -------------------- THOMAS, C.C., AGED 60 YEARS, S/O. CHAKKORU, C.T., (RETIRED LAW OFFICER, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY DIVISIONAL OFFICE COMPOUND, HUBLI 580 023) PERMANENT ADDRESS: CHITTILAPPILLY HOUSE, TC 46/1647, ARANATTUKARA, PULLAZHI P.O., AYYANTHOLE, TRICHUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY SRIT.R.MOHANAKUMAR SRI.G.SHYAM RAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS (RAILWAY BOARD) NEW DELHI 110 001. 2. GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, HUBLI 580 020 3. THE CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, HUBLI 560 020 4. THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, BANGALORE CAONTONMENT, BANGALORE 580 020 BY SC SRI. N.B. SUNILNATH THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- O.P. (CAT) No. 322 of 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Petitioner after retirement as Law Officer, South-Western Railway, filed O.A. before the Tribunal contending that he should have been promoted to the post of Senior Law Officer on 29.3.2007. The Tribunal however noticed that petitioner as Chief Law Assistant was functioning in the capacity of Assistant Law Officer and the actual promotion as Asst. Law Officer was given to him only on 29.3.2004. He was promoted as Law Officer on 4.2.2006. Petitioner's case is that he did not have the qualifying service for promotion to the post of Senior Law Officer because his promotion to the post of Asst. Law Officer as well as to the post of Law Officer was delayed by the Railways. According to the petitioner he was the only person eligible to be considered for promotion. However, on facts, the tribunal found that the petitioner was not the seniormost person eligible to be considered for promotion. Further, selection to the post of Senior Law OP (CAT) 322/2010 2 Officer was a selection process and on account of administrative delay there was delay in effecting promotion. It is the finding of the Tribunal that petitioner cannot complain of any arbitrary or discriminatory action on the part of the railways because he has no right to be appointed to the post created by the Railways. A review application later filed before the Tribunal was also dismissed and O.P. (CAT) is filed challenging the order in the O.A. and against rejection of Review Petition. 2. Before us also, petitioner raised the very same contentions that were raised before the Tribunal. We do not find any merit in the case because, merely because Railways created a post of Senior Law Officer, the same does not mean that it should be filled up by a person who is not qualified, though he may be senior. According to the petitioner, even as of now, the post remains vacant and nobody is appointed. We do not think that there is any need for us to find the reason why the Railways keep the post vacant. Since petitioner retired more than 2-1/2 years back, he cannot complain of filling of vacancy after his retirement. So long as he has not established his eligibility for OP (CAT) 322/2010 3 promotion, we cannot find fault with the order of the Tribunal in the O.A. O.P. (CAT) is accordingly dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (K. SURENDRA MOHAN) Judge. kk OP (CAT) 322/2010 4