IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 28TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 35144 of 2008(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ATTABI BANIYAM, D/O.SAYED ISMAIL KOYA, BANIYAM HOUSE, KILTAN ISLAND, LAKSHADWEEP. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ADMINISTRATOR OF UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, (DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION), KAVARATHI. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KAVARATHI. BY SC SRI. S. RADHAKRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.35144/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT The prayers in the writ petition are as follows. "i. To call for the records leading up to Ext.P1 where by fixing the minimum marks of 40% for the PDC for the appointments for the post of Primary School teacher which is against the notification of NCTE and quash the same by issuance of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or direction and direct the respondents 1 & 2 to appoint the petitioner in the next available vacancy. ii. To declare that Ext.P1 is not sustainable since it is against Ext.P2 notification. iii. To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pass orders on Ext.P3 forthwith." WP(c).No.35144/2008 2 2. From the admitted case of the petitioner, the challenge is regarding the qualification fixed for recruitment to the post of Primary School Teachers under the first respondent. When the matter was taken up for consideration, the Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of this writ petition. According to him, this matter comes within the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal and therefore this court shall not entertain this writ petition. 3. This contention of the counsel for the respondent was contradicted by the counsel for the petitioner referring to the judgment of the Apex court in Surinder Singh V. Union of India and Ors.(2007(11)SCC 599). 4. Having considered the rival submissions made, I am satisfied that the counsel for the respondents is justified in his objection. As already noticed, the subject matter of the writ petition is in relation to the recruitment to the post of Primary School Teacher under respondents 1 and 2. In view of Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, conferring WP(c).No.35144/2008 3 exclusive jurisdiction on the Administrative Tribunal on matters relating to the recruitment, the remedy available to the petitioner is to approach the Tribunal. 5. In so far as the Apex court judgment reported in Surinder Singh V. Union of India and Ors.(2007(11)SCC 599) relied on by the counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the judgment only deals with the limitations of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in matters relating to selection and appointment. The said judgment has no relevance in deciding the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to decide the issue raised in this writ petition. Therefore, leaving open the contentions and without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal, the writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. WP(c).No.35144/2008 4