IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 20TH MARCH 2009 / 29TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 33137 of 2008(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.P.ABOOBACKER, AREEKATTPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O.KODAKKAL, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM. 3. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.. SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.33137 OF 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 20th day of March, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner submits that he made an application for conversion of his service as LSOS and also for extension. By Ext.P1 proceedings of the RTA dated 7.8.2007 his request for conversion as LSOS was rejected and in so far as the extension sought for is concerned, a report was called for from the Secretary. Ultimately, by Ext.P5 dated 25.3.2008 his request for extension was also rejected. 2. However, Ext.P1 in so far as it rejected his request for conversion as LSOS was not challenged by the petitioner. After Ext.P5 order was passed he filed Ext.P2 appeal, MVAA.No.353/2008 and the appeal was rejected by Ext.P4 judgment dated 28th August 2008. Complaint in this writ petition is that in Ext.P4 judgment the Tribunal has not dealt with his grievance regarding conversion as LSOS. WP(c).No.33137/08 /2/ 3. In Ext.P5 all that has been dealt with was the case of the petitioner for extension and this was for the reason that his request for conversion as LSOS was already rejected by Ext.P1. Ext.P1 was not the subject matter of Ext.P2 appeal and it was therefore that conversion as LSOS was not dealt with by the Tribunal n Ext.P4 judgment. I cannot therefore find fault with the Tribunal in adopting this stand. Therefore, if at all the petitioner was aggrieved by Ext.P1 to the extent his request for conversion is rejected, it was up to the petitioner to have pursued his remedies. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.33137/08 /2/