IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1933 OP (CAT).No. 3375 of 2011(Z) ---------------------------- OA.164/2011 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER/APPLICANT ---------------------------------------- MUHAMMED RAFEEK.K., AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.(LATE) N.KHALID, PRESENTLY WORKING AS PORT ASST.GR.B/SIGNATTER UNDER THE PORT, SHIPPING AND AVIATION U.T.OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATHI (FORMER TALLY CLARK) (NOW RESIDING AT KUNNASHADA HOUSE, ANTHROTH ISLAND, U.T.OF LAKSHADWEEP) BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.A.MANZOOR ALI RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THE ADMINISTRATION OF UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATTI REP. BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR, PIN - 682555. 2. THE SECRETARY, PORT, SHIPPING & AVIATION U.T. OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATTI, PIN - 682555. 3. THE DIRECTOR, PORT, SHIPPING & AVIATION U.T. OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATTI, PIN - 682555. ADV. SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,SC,LAKSHADWEEP ADMN FOR R1 TO 3 THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP (CAT).No. 3375 of 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P-1 A TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL. EXT.P-2 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 22/2/2011. EXT.P-3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY statement FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS. EXT.P-4 A TRUE COPY OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN THE O.A. EXT.P-5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8/8/2011 PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL /TRUE COPY/ PS TO JUDGE MANJULA CHELLUR, Ag.C.J & C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ---------------------------------------------- O.P(CAT).No. 3375 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Manjula Chellur, Ag.C.J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel for Union Territory of Lakshadweep Sri.S.Radhakrishnan. 2. The grievance of the petitioner seems to be that if Cargo Superintendent was promoted as Welfare Officer, then the Shipping Inspector was entitled for promotion as Cargo Superintendent, thereby he would have become Shipping Inspector as per the unamended Recruitment Rules concerned. The stand of the respondents-authorities is that as there was discrepancy in the unamended Rules of Recruitment by prescribing same qualifications for both, the direct recruitees and the promotees, a policy decision was taken not to make any recruitments including the promotion till the deficits were set right in the recruitment rules. Therefore, the respondents- authorities did not fill up the post of Welfare Officer at the relevant point of time. OP(CAT).3375/11 2 3. The Central Administrative Tribunal, after referring to the stand of the writ petitioner and taking into account the statement of the respondents, rightly pointed out that in the absence of any vested right, the petitioner herein cannot place his claim on ifs and buts or the prospective vacancy that would have come into existence if only the Welfare Officer post was filled up at the relevant point of time. It is well settled that in a matter of policy decision the intervention of Court must be minimal. One cannot find fault with the decision of authorities, especially to fill up a particular post and why such a policy decision postponing filling up of such post was taken as the same is explained by the respondents-authorities. We do not find any good ground to intervene with the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Accordingly, the Original Petition is dismissed. MANJULA CHELLUR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE vgs