IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2009 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 9209 of 2009(S) ------------------------- OA.114/2008 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER: --------------- T.M.SUDHA,SENIOR TOWN PLANNER, TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,RESIDING AT SRI,T.C.11/486-1, NANTHEN NAGAR,KOWDIAR P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR SRI.LEO GEORGE RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL,PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSION, NEW DELHI. 2. UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,UPSC, SHAJAHAN ROAD, NEW DELHI. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (SPECIAL A) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (REVENUE), DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. W.P.(C) NO.9209/2009 6. BIJU PRABHAKAR, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, DIRECTORATE OF SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS, VAZHUTHACAUD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT.PLEADER, SMTR.BINDU FOR R3 TO R5 ADV.SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, FOR R1 SRI.GEORGE JOSEPH, SC FOR R2. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 9209 OF 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner is a senior Town Planner working under the Kerala Government. Certain number of vacancies in the Indian Administrative Service from the State are earmarked for candidates not belonging to State Civil Service. The petitioner comes under the said feeder category of persons not belonging to the State Civil Service. The 6th respondent, though originally was similarly placed like the petitioner, was later appointed as Deputy Collector and thereby he became a member of the State Civil Service. But, his claim for appointment to I.A.S. from the quota set apart for those, not belonging to State Civil Service, was rejected by the competent authority. Aggrieved by the same he moved the C.A.T. by filing O.A.No.114/2008. The said Original Application was allowed by the C.A.T. and pursuant to the direction of the C.A.T., he was considered and appointed to IAS from the quota set apart for W.P.(C) No.9209/2009 2 candidates not belonging to the State Civil Service. The writ petitioner aggrieved by the said order of the C.A.T., filed Review Application No.21/2009. In fact, the 6th respondent was appointed to the post of I.A.S., during the pendency of the Review Petition. The above Review Petition was heard along with Review Application No. 20/2009 filed by another similarly placed person. Those applications were allowed by Ext.P7 order of the C.A.T. dated 13.3.2009. After reviewing the order and restoring the Original Application, the Tribunal made the following observations in Ext.P7. “27. We are informed that the first respondent to Review Application had already been appointed on the strength of the order of this Tribunal (which has been recalled) presumably after conducting selection. It is for the official respondents to review the selection, at their discretion and in the exigencies of service.” 2. The writ petitioner submits, the 6th respondent was appointed to I.A.S only because of the order of the C.A.T. Once that order is recalled, his appointment being a dependent order must be set aside. But, instead the Tribunal has given liberty to W.P.(C) No.9209/2009 3 the official respondents either to retain him or to sent him out. The same is illegal. To that extent, Ext.P7 is challenged in this Writ Petition. 3. When Ext.P7 holds the field, we feel, normally, the appointment of the 6th respondent being a dependent order should collapse. The Tribunal in its discretion could have asked to sent out the 6th respondent or could have ordered to retain him in service, till the Original Application filed by him is finally disposed of, provisionally. In this case, the Tribunal has chosen to leave it to the official respondents to decide whether, he should be retained or not. It being an order passed in the discretion of the Tribunal, we think it is not proper for us to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Tribunal. We do not think the discretion exercised by the Tribunal in this regard was perverse. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the continuance of the 6th respondent in the post may prejudice the writ petitioner's contentions. We find no reason to think that W.P.(C) No.9209/2009 4 the continuance of the 6th respondent will prejudice the contentions of the writ petitioner before the C.A.T. His continuance or non-continuance will not affect the rights or contentions of the parties or cannot influence the decision of the C.A.T. in the matter . Therefore, it is unnecessary to interfere with Ext.P7. Subject to the above observations, this writ petition is dismissed. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE) ps