IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST AUGUST 2011 / 9TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 20898 OF 2007(S) -------------------------- OA.426/2004 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEADQUARTERS OFFICE, PARK TOWN P.O. CHENNAI - 600 003. 2. DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, TRIVANDRUM DIVISION, TRIVANDRUM - 695 014. 3. DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, TRIVANDRUM DIVISION, TRIVANDRUM - 695 014. BY ADV. SRI.M.C.CHERIAN,SR.SC.,RAILWAYS RESPONDENTS: --------------- C.LALITHA, W/O.LATE MANIYAN, GANGWOMAN, GANG NO.10, KAZHAKUTTAM, TRIVANDRUM, RESIDING AT: MANAKKADU VILAKAM, NEAR SHAJI HOSPITAL, KAZHAKUTTAM P.O., TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MARTIN G.THOTTAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) 20898/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF RAILWAY BOARD'S LETTER NO. E(NG) 1/96/CL/61 DATED 3.9.96. EXT.P2 TRUE COLPY OF LETTER NO. V/P. 564/I/EMP/TVC DIVN/VOL.V. DATED 13.2.97. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF CASUAL LABOURERS FROM SL. NOS. 38 TO 68. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. V/P. 171/GROUP-D/SPL. DRIVE DATED 25/30-4-1996. EXT.P5 TRUE EXTRACT OF LETTER NO. V/P. 407/1/ECL VOL. IX DATED 30.11.1998. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF O.A. NO. 426/2004 FILED BY THE APPLICANT ALONG WITH ANNEXURES. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED 23.12.2004 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN O.A. 426/2004. EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL DATED 13.9.2006 IN O.A. NO. 426/2004. EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN O.A. NO. 426/2004. EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL DATED 14.2.2007 IN O.A. NO. 426/2004. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT. R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 2.9.1994 IN O.A. 267/1994 PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH. EXT.R1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.2.1995 IN O.A. 297/1995 PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH. EXT.R1(c) TRUE COPYH OF THE ORDER ATED 12.1.1995 IN O.A. 301/1994 PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH. EXT.R1(d) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.9.1994 IN O.A. 176/1994 PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH. // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE. KNC/- C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S. GOPINATHAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) 20898 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2011. J U D G M E N T P.S. Gopinathan, J. Respondents in O.A. 426 OF 2004 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam are the petitioners. They assailed Ext.P10 order of the Tribunal whereby they were directed to regularise the service of the respondent with effect from 13.2.1997. The Tribunal, on a meticulous analysis of the pleadings on either side, arrived at a finding that one of the junior of the respondent was regularised with effect from 13.2.1997. There is no reason to deny that benefit to the respondent. It is on that reasoning the impugned direction was issued by the Tribunal. In this view of the matter, the order impugned is not at all vitiated in any manner. 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the junior of the respondent was appointed only to make good the short fall of the scheduled caste candidates. Going by Ext.P5 we see that there were open W.P.(C) 20898/2007 2 vacancies and other candidates were also appointed, of course, in pursuance to the order of the Tribunal. Whatever may be the reason, by virtue of such appointment, it is just and appropriate to conclude that there was vacancy in which the respondent also could have been accommodated along with his junior. In this circumstance, we see no reason to discriminate the respondent for the reason that she might have approached the Tribunal earlier. The order of the Tribunal is not at all vitiated by any error or illegality. There is no merit in the writ petition. It is dismissed. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, (JUDGE). P.S. GOPINATHAN, (JUDGE) knc/-