IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2008 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 11844 of 2008(S) -------------------------- OA.597/2005 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONERS: ------------ 1. THE ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, KOLLAM SOUTH SUB DIVISION, KOLLAM. 2. THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, KOLLAM DIVISION, KOLLAM. 3. THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL, KERALA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, NEW DELHI. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH, CGC RESPONDENT: ------------- R. BABU, S/O. RAVEENDRAN PILLAI, WORKING AS TELEGRAPHIC MANAGER, POOYAPALLY POST OFFICE, RESIDING AT KUTTIKKATTU MEDATHIL PUTHEN VEEDU, POOYAPALLY P.O., KOTTARAKKARA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 11844 OF 2008-S ----------------------------------------- Dated 2nd June, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioners are the respondents in O.A.No.597/2005 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. The respondent was the applicant therein. The said O.A was allowed by the Tribunal by order dated 11.8.2006. But, the Writ Petition is filed challenging the said order before this Court only on 22.01.2008. There is considerable delay in filing the writ petition. But, the learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the respondent herein, who was the applicant before the Tribunal, was a worker not sponsored by the Employment Exchange and therefore, he was not entitled to be considered for selection to the post of Gramin Dak Sevak. If Ext.P1 order is allowed to stand, the same may affect other cases also, it is submitted. 2. In view of the considerable and unexplained delay in challenging Ext.P1 order of the C.A.T., we are not inclined to exercise the discretionary WPC 11844/2008 2 jurisdiction of this Court. But, it is clarified that the said decision will not bind the petitioners as a precedent in other cases. Subject to this clarification, the Writ Petition is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. Nm/