IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1929 OP.No. 25186 of 2002(S) ----------------------- ( OA.1125/1999 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH) PETITIONER: -------------------- R.BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. RAGHAVAN, DECK HAND GRADE-IV, CENTRAL MARINE FISHERIES RESEARCH INSTITUTE, MANGALORE, PERMANENT ADDRESS: PANACKAL CHIRA, PALLIPURAM P.O. SHERTHALAI, ALLEPPEY DISTRICT, PIN-688 541. BY ADV. SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY ADV. SRI.K.M.ANTHRU RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, NEW DELHI. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, NEW DELHI. 3. DIRECTOR, CENTRAL MARINE FISHERIES RESEARCH INSTITUTE, TATAPURAM P.O., KOCHI-14. 4. SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, O/O. THE DIRECTOR, CENTRAL MARINE FISHERIES RESEARCH INSTITUTE, TATAPURAM, KOCHI-14. 5. OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, VISAKHAPATANAM RESEARCH CENTRE OF CENTRAL MARINE FISHERIES RESEARCH INSTITUTE, VISAKHAPATANAM. OP.No. 25186 of 2002(S) 6. OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, KARNATAKA RESEARCH CENTRE OF CENTRAL MARINE FISHERIES RESEARCH INSTITUTE, KARWAR, KARNATAKA. R1 BY SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASST.SOLICITOR GENERAL. R2 TO R6 BY BY ADV. SRI.P.JACOB VARGHESE, SC, CMFRI. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP.No. 25186 of 2002(S) ORDER ON C.M.P.NO. 42686 OF 2002 IN O.P.NO. 25186 OF 2002 DISMISSED. 25.02.2008 SD/- K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. SD/- K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.12.2001 IN O.A.NO. 1125 OF 1999 OF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE O.A. NO.1125 OF 1999 ALONG WITH ITS ANNEXURES FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED 28.10.1999 FILED BY THE OFFICIAL RESPONDENTS BEFORE THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH IN O.A. 1125/99. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE APPLICANT BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL , ERNAKULAM BENCH IN O.A.NO.1125 OF 1999. EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS BEFORE THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN O.A.NO. 1125/1999. EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 13.01.1986 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES , GOVERNMENT OF KERALA. EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT COMMUNICATED UNDER NO. 14-2/83-ADMN OF 11.04.1983 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & K.T. SANKARAN, JJ. ................................................................................... O.P. No. 25186 OF 2002 ................................................................................... Dated this the 25th February, 2008 J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J: The petitioner was the applicant in O.A.No. 1125 of 1999, which was disposed of by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench by Ext. P1 order dated 12.12.2001. 2. In Ext. P1 O.A., he challenged Annexure-A7 order, by which Annexure-A6 option exercised by him on 04.01.1999 was rejected as belated. The petitioner is working as a Deckhand. The said post is included in the technical category as well as in the supporting staff category. The petitioner submits that on the basis of the qualification possessed by him, he should be included as Deckhand in the technical category and not in the supporting staff category. 3. The respondents, on the other hand, would contend that even if he has exercised his option, he could have been included only in the supporting staff category and not in the technical category. 4. As mentioned earlier, Annexure-A7 was issued rejecting Annexure-A6 option exercised by the petitioner only on the ground of delay to submit it. According to the petitioner, he saw Annexure-A4 office proceedings dated 07.11.1996 only on 02.01.1999. Immediately on 04.01.1999, he submitted his option, it is submitted. As evident from Annexure-A4, it was the duty of the 5th respondent to get the option from O.P. No. 25186 OF 2002 2 the petitioner in time and to send it to the competent authority. Though the respondents disputed the claim made by the petitioner, we are of the view that from the photo copy of Annexure-A4 produced before the Central Administrative Tribunal, it would appear that the petitioner had seen it only on 02.01.1999. At any rate, the fifth respondent in the O.A. failed to get the option from the petitioner and forward it in time. Therefore, we feel that the claim made by the petitioner should not have been rejected on the ground of delay alone. But we notice that in the reply statement (Ext. P3 ), respondents took the stand that even if he has exercised his option, it would not have made any difference. The Central Administrative Tribunal also accepted that view. But we feel that this is a point, which the competent authority should have considered and decided only after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. In other words, the stand of the respondents that even if the petitioner has exercised his option, the same would not have made any difference, is a stand taken adverse to him for the first time in the O.A only. Without adverting to the petitioner's contention on that point made with reference to his qualification, the Tribunal also accepted the version of the respondents. From the materials produced before us, it is not clear, why the petitioner could not be included in the technical category and was included in the supporting staff category. Therefore, we are not in a position to take a final decision in this dispute on merits. 5. In view of the above position, we feel that the competent authority, the third respondent should re-consider the matter. The said authority is directed to take a fresh decision in the matter, in accordance with law. The petitioner's option shall be treated as having been submitted in time. If the competent authority proposes to reject O.P. No. 25186 OF 2002 3 the claim of the petitioner on merits, the petitioner shall be put on notice regarding the reasons for it and he should be given a chance to represent against the same. Only thereafter, the competent authority shall take a final decision in the matter. To enable the competent authority to comply with the above direction, Ext.P1 order of the Tribunal and Annexure-A7 order are quashed. The decision shall be taken by the competent authority/third respondent within a period of two months' from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. The Original Petition is disposed of as above. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. lk O.P. No. 25186 OF 2002 4 K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & K.T. SANKARAN, JJ. ........................................................... O.P. No. 25186 OF 2002 ............................................................. Dated this the 25th February, 2008 J U D G M E N T