IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2009 / 23RD POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 19167 of 2005(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- DR.JOSEPH THOMAS, S/O.V.A.THOMAS, RESIDING AT VELANKUNNEL HOUSE, ARAKULAM P.O., IDUKKI-685 591. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.) SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SMT.M.R.VALSA SRI.SREEKANTH.K.R SRI.K.A.NOUSHAD SRI.JIBU P THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, NEW DELHI. 2. THE DIRECTOR, CENTRAL COUNCIL FOR RESEARCH IN HOMEOPATHY, 61-65 INDUSTRIAL AREA, D BLOCK, JANAKPURI, NEW DELHI-110 058. ADV. SRI.FRANCIS JOSEPH KURISINKAL, ADDL.CGS FOR R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 19167 of 2005 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 26.5.99 EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF O.M.36035/7/95-ESTT.(SCT) DATED 16.1.98 EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED NIL EXT.P4- TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 5.5.04 EXT.P5- TRUE COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT NO.1/04. EXT.P6- TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER SENT ALONG WITH THE APPLICATION DATED JANUARY, 2005. (TRUE COPY) P.A TO JUDGE V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).19167/2005 -------------------- Dated this the 13th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner has been working as Assistant Research Officer in the second respondent and aspired for promotion as Assistant Director or as Deputy Director. Admittedly, service comes within the purview of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Petitioner had moved the Tribunal with a claim which, as evidenced by Ext.R2-C, was rejected. It is clear that the petitioner's service under the second respondent is cognizable by the Central Administrative Tribunal. If that be so, petitioner's claim could be agitated only before the CAT. Writ petition is not maintainable in the first instance. Therefore the same is dismissed. I make it clear that I have not considered the issue on merits. Other contentions of the petitioner are left open. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs