IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 18TH JULY 2011 / 27TH ASHADHA 1933 OP (CAT).No. 2303 of 2011(Z) ---------------------------- OA.165/2010 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER ------------------ P.V.BABU, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.P.K.VASU, ASSISTANT OPERATOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FISHERIES POST HARVEST TECHNOLOGY & TRAINING (NIFPHATT) KOCHI - 682 016 RESIDING AT: NIFPHATT QUARTERS, PULLEPPADY, KOCHI - 682 018. BY ADV. SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY SRI.G.SHYAM RAJ SMT.KALA T.GOPI RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE (DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, DAIRYING AND FISHERIES) NEW DELHI - 110 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FISHERIES POST HARVEST TECHNOLOGY & TRAINING (NIFPHATT) KOCHI - 682 016. 3. SHRI.K.CHANDRAMOHANAN NAIR, OPERATOR (ICEPLANT) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FISHERIES POST HARVEST TECHNOLOGY & TRAINING (NIFPHATT) KOCHI - 682 016. ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, SG OF INDIA FOR R1 & 2 GOVT.PLEADER, SMT.T.B.RAMANI. THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.(C.A.T.) NO.2303/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: COPY OF ORDER OF THE LEARNED CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM BENCH IN O.A.NO.165/2010 DECIDED ON 18.5.2010. EXT.P2: COPY OF O.A.NO.165/2010 DT.16.2.2010 ALONG WITH ITS ANNEXURES FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE C.A.T., ERNAKULAM BENCH. EXT.P3: COP OF REPLY STATEMENT DT.9.4.2010 FILED BY THE OFFICIAL RESPONDENTS IN O.A.NO.165/2010 EXT.P4: COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DT.17.4.2010 FILED ON BEHALF OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. --------------------------------------- O.P.(C.A.T).No.2303 OF 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ C.N.Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Assistant Solicitor General who took notice, appeared and argued the matter. After hearing the parties and after going through the Tribunal's order, we do not find any merit in the contention raised by the petitioner because the required qualification for appointment as Operator (Ice plant) is ITI with five years qualifying service. The appellant's case is that ITI qualification is not required and five years qualifying service is sufficient to get the post. The appellant being senior to the 3rd respondent should be preferred in appointment is his case. We do not find any merit in the contention because the Rule specifically mentions that ITI is a required qualification, which only the 3rd respondent has. Consequently, we dismiss the Writ Appeal. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE) ps