THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO W.P.NO.19129 of 2010 9-08-2010 BETWEEN; S.V.Ramachandra Raju son of Late S.V.Gopala Raju ...Petitioner vs. Union of India, Rep. By Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi and others ...Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO W.P.NO.19129 of 2010 ORAL ORDER: (Per GR,J) The unsuccessful applicant in O.A.No.995 of 2009 is before thi Court assailing the order of the learned Central Administrative Tribuna Hyderabad Bench (the Tribunal) dated 19-03-2010, rejecting the O.A. The petitioner was working as a Technical Officer in the Militar Engineering Service under the administrative control of the respondents The 2nd respondent forwarded proposals to the 1st respondent b a letter dated 18-05-2006 proposing bifurcation of the post of Technica Officer into Technical Officer-Grade. II and Technical Officer Grade.I in th pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 and Rs.7500-12000 respectively. No decisio having been taken by the Government of India on the 2nd respondent’ proposals, the petitioner approached the Tribunal seeking a direction t the Government of India (the 1st respondent herein) to expeditiousl implement the 2nd respondent’s proposals. Relying upon the judgment o the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Pushpa Rani and other reported in 2008(9) SCC 242, clarifying that in the matters relating t creation/abolition of posts, formation/restructuring of cadres, sources/mod of recruitment, prescription of qualifications, selection criteria, evaluation o service records, judicial review is normally precluded since these area fall primarily in the employer’s domain, the Tribunal rejected the O.A. Reiterating the same contentions which found disfavour before th Tribunal, Sri Siva, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend tha the petitioner has a right and therefore there is a corollary obligation of th 1st respondent to consider his representation as forwarded by the 2n respondent, within a reasonable time. We do not agree. The petitioner sought bifurcation of the Technica Officer’s category into Category.I and II with differential pay scales. The 2n respondent no doubt forwarded proposals to that effect but whether decision should be taken on the said proposals is an aspect for the 1s respondent-Union of India to consider in the fullness of time and in th context of a variety of complex administrative concerns that go into th decision making process as to the categorisation of services. The 1s respondent cannot be mandamised to consider proposals for restructurin of categories, within a particular time. On the aforesaid analysis, we concur with the finding of the learne Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. The writ petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. No orde as to costs. _____________ GODA RAGHURAM,J _____________ R.KANTHA RAO,J 9th AUGUST 2010. TSNR