IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2011 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1932 OP (CAT).No. 97 of 2011(S) -------------------------------------- OA.521/2009 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER (S): APPLICANT ------------------------------------------ NASEEMABI P.K., W/O.AHAMED P.P., AGED 30 YEARS, PURAKKAD, KADAMAT, LAKSHADWEEP. BY ADVS. SRI.M.P.KRISHNAN NAIR SMT.RAJESWARI KRISHNAN SRI.V.B.NARAYANAN SRI.ANIYANKUNJU VARGHESE SRI.M.J.WILFRED DAS RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------------- 1. THE ADMINISTRATOR, U.T.OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATTI – 682 555. 2. THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION, KAVARATTI -682555. BY ADV. SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, SC LAKSHADWEEP THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= O.P.(CAT) No. 97 of 2011 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 11th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. Petitioner had applied for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (Mathematics) in response to Ext.P1 notification dated October 9, 2007 issued by the Director of Education under the Administration of the Union Territory of Lakshadweep. Two vacancies were notified in Ext.P1. 2. The appointing authority, after considering the applications received from the eligible candidates, drew up a select list in which petitioner could not find a place. However, she was included in the wait list as the sole candidate. She challenged the select list before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, contending inter alia that the process of selection was vitiated and that the appointing authority had not notified the entire vacancies available at the time of the issue of Ext.P1 notification. According to the petitioner, she had the OP (CAT) 97/2011 2 requisite qualification and working experience and therefore ,she ought to have been selected. 3. The Administration and appointing authority contended before the Tribunal that the selection process had been completed strictly adhering to the Recruitment Rules and the Regulations governing the field. The select list was drawn up after evaluating the merit of the candidates who participated in the selection process and the petitioner was placed in the wait list on the basis of the marks obtained by her in the eligibility test and interview. It was further contended that the allegation raised by the petitioner that more vacancies were available than what had been notified was totally incorrect. 4. The Tribunal after considering the rival contentions of the parties dismissed the Original Application holding that there was no irregularity in the selection process. The said order is under challenge in this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Sri.M.P.Krishnan Nair, learned counsel for the OP (CAT) 97/2011 3 petitioner, submits that the appointing authority and the Administration have committed serious illegality and irregularity in suppressing the actual number of vacancies that were available at the time when Ext.P1 notification was issued. Learned counsel has tried to buttress the above argument with the aid of several documents which have been pressed into service before us. But none of these documents will show that as on the date of Ext.P1 notification (October 9, 2009) any other vacancy than the two which were notified in Ext.P1 was available. 6. It may be noticed that the respondents had specifically referred to one deputation vacancy that was available during the relevant period. The specific case of the respondents was that the department could not fill up deputation vacancies with fresh candidates on a regular basis Such vacancies are being managed by appointing Guest Lecturers as and when contingencies arise. It was further clarified by the respondents in the reply statement that the two regular vacancies which were available were OP (CAT) 97/2011 4 alone notified in Ext.P1. Even assuming a deputationist is relieved of duties, the department cannot fill such vacancies with fresh candidates on a regular basis. 7. We have carefully perused the entire materials available on record, particularly, the additional documents produced by the petitioner before this court. It appears that the petitioner had produced some of these new documents before the Tribunal along with a review application after dismissal of the Original Application. But as has been noticed already none of these documents will show that any other regular vacancy than the two notified vacancies was available at the time when Ext.P1 notification was issued. In that view of the matter, we are not in a position to accept the contention of the petitioner that one Post Graduate Teacher's vacancy which existed was filled up by the department only in 2009 may not come to the aid of the petitioner in any manner, even assuming the respondents had taken their sweet own time to fill up the said vacancy. This cannot be a justifiable ground for the petitioner to OP (CAT) 97/2011 5 attack the present selection process in the absence of any material to show that the process was vitiated by any irregularity or that the department had willfully suppressed any existing vacancy while issuing Ext.P1 notification. 8. There is yet another aspect of the matter. Admittedly appointment had been issued to the selected candidates pursuant to the selection process in May 2008 itself. It is on record that the two selected candidates had joined service immediately thereafter. The Original Application was filed by the petitioner only in July, 2009, by which time the selected candidates had already competed more than one year's service. 9. Still further, it is revealed from the averments in the Original Application that the primary concern of the petitioner was that the select list was likely to be cancelled by the authorities. The petitioner had no case that the two selected candidates were not eligible or qualified to be appointed. Petitioner's only grievance was that she ought to have been selected to the other vacancy which according OP (CAT) 97/2011 6 to her existed at the time of issuance of Ext.P1 notification. As has been clarified by the respondents, the petitioner was placed in the wait list strictly on the basis of the marks obtained by her in the selection process. 9. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal in exercise of the power under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE mn.