IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY TUESDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1932 OP (CAT).No. 608 of 2010(S) --------------------------- OA.110/2007 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER: -------------------- SHARAF ALI.U., AGED 46 YEARS S/O.LAE KUNHALAN U, DEPUTY COMMANDANT, MALABAR SPECIAL POLICE, MALAPPURAM, RESIDING AT THERTTAMMAL, URANGATTIRI POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 4. UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, SHAJAHAN ROAD, NEW DELHI. 5. THE SELECTION COMMITTEE TO THE INDIAN POLICE SERVICE CONSTITUTED UNDER REGULATION 3 OF IPS (APPOINTMENT BY PROMOTION) REGULATION 1955 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMMISSION, SHAJAHAN ROAD, NEW DELHI. 6. THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL OF POLICE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.GEORGE JOSEPH,SC,UPSC(UNION PUBLIC FOR R1,4 & 5 THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ. .................................................................... O.P.(CAT) No.608 of 2010 .................................................................... Dated this the 9th day of November, 2010. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Original Petition is filed challenging Ext.P1 order whereunder petitioner's challenge against his removal from the zone of consideration for selection to the cadre of I.P.S. was confirmed by the Tribunal. The petitioner happens to be in the Armed Forces Battalion which is not treated as part of the Principal Police Service of the State i.e. the Executive Branch of the Police, service in which alone qualifies for consideration for appointment to the cadre of I.P.S. From the order what is clear is that the issue stands settled by decision of the Tribunal and the High Court and the Supreme Court, which is against the petitioner. So much so, there is no scope for interference with the Tribunal's order on this issue. However, counsel further raised a contention that prior to the ban on Armed Forces personnel, there was selection to I.P.S. Cadre including those serving the Armed Forces Battalion. During the selection held when petitioner was eligible, he 2 was not considered, which according to the petitioner is illegal. However, we do not find this contention raised or decided by the Tribunal. So much so, we cannot consider this issue raised for the first time in the W.P.(C). If Tribunal has not considered any issue raised before it in the O.A., it is for the petitioner to move the Tribunal in review or other appropriate proceeding. With this observation we dismiss this O.P.(CAT). If there is delay to file review, it is for the petitioner to move for condonation of delay before the C.A.T. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge BHABANI PRASAD RAY Judge pms