IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 12TH JULY 2010 / 21ST ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 33375 of 2009(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- DR.P.N.PREMACHANDRAN,ADDL. DIRECTOR & HEAD,SOIL SURVEY,KERALA,SOIL CONSERVATION UNIT, SREE SABARI BUILDING,P.O.CHALAI,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695036,RESIDING AT "PRANAVAM",TC-15/285(2), ANRA-38,ALTHARA NAGAR,VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 010. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.N.MANOJ KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.33375/09 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: PHOTOCOPY OF TESTIMONIALS OF THE PETITIONER, REFERRED TO IN THE WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) EXT.P2: PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER GO(RT) NO.1658/2009/AD DT 26.9.2009 ISSUED BY THE AGRICULTURE PRODUCTION COMMISSIONER, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3: PHOTOCOPY OF APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE MINISTER FOR AGRICULTURE ON 3.10.2009. EXT.P4: PHOTOCOPY OF JUDGMENT DT 29.10.2009 IN WPC NO.30752/2009 U EXT.P5: PETITION FOR EARLY POSTING, DT 4.11.09, SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONE RBEFORE THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE NO.26895/EB1/09/AD DT 16.11.09 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT. EXT.P7: EXT.P5 PETITION DT 4.11.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER GO(RT) NO.2390/09/GAD DT 1.4.1990 REFERRED TO IN THE WRIT PETITION. EXT.P9: PHOTOCOPY OF COVERING LETTER DT 1.12.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 33375 OF 2009 (N) ===================== Dated this the 12th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. 2. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent raised a contention that the writ petition is not maintainable. According to the learned Government Pleader, the issue raised in this writ petition is one to which Section 14(a) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is applicable, and therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in L.Chandrakumar v. Union of India {(1997) 3 SCC 261} in Para 93, the writ petition is not maintainable. 3. However, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner's claim for inclusion in the zone of consideration for IAS was declined on account of the fact that he was placed under suspension, by Ext.P2 order. It is contended that immediately after the writ petition was filed, on 23/11/09, the respondent forwarded a list of ten candidates to the UPSC. According to the counsel, immediately thereafter, on 26/11/09, WPC No. 33375/09 :2 : the suspension was revoked. It is argued that suspension was the only reason for his exclusion, and since an issue in relation to the suspension cannot be the subject matter of an application before the Tribunal, this writ petition is maintainable. 4. If the preliminary objection raised by the learned Government Pleader is accepted, the necessary consequence is that the writ petition has to be held as incompetent. Therefore, I shall first consider that issue. 5. The only prayer in this writ petition reads as under:- (i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the respondent to include and forward the name of the petitioner to Government of India,who is now included as No.1 in the final list, in the zone of consideration for selection to IAS Officers. Therefore, what is sought for by the petitioner was only his inclusion within the zone of consideration for IAS and a direction to forward his name to the Government of India for consideration is also sought for. This prayer has nothing to do with his suspension or its legality. 6. Section 14(1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act provides that the Central Administrative Tribunal shall exercise all the jurisdiction, powers and authority exercisable by all courts in WPC No. 33375/09 :3 : relation to recruitment, and matters concerning recruitment, to any All-India Service or to any civil service of the Union or a civil post under the Union or to a post connected with defence or in the defence services, being, in either case, a post filled by a civilian. Finalisation of the list of officers in the State is done in terms of the provisions contained in the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1997, issued under Section 3 of the All India Services Act, 1951. 7. Necessarily, therefore, the finalisation of list and forwarding the same is a matter “concerning recruitment to All India Services”, and once it is held so, necessarily, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in L.Chandrakumar's case (supra), the remedy of the petitioner lies before the Central Administrative Tribunal and this Court has no jurisdiction to deal with the issue. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable and will have to be dismissed and I do so. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp