IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 2ND AUGUST 2010 / 11TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23272 of 2010(S) -------------------------- TA.50/2008 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- SINDHU.G., AGED 37 YEARS, W/O.GIREESH, TELECOM TECHNICAL ASSISTANT (TTA), TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, PAMPAKUTTA - 686667 (MUVATTUPUZHA) ERNAKULAM DIST.(NOW WORKING IN THE TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, VAZHAPPILLY, MUDAVOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM DIST, R/AT TELECOM STAFF QUARATERS, VAZHAPPILLY. BY ADV. SRI.P.P.JNANASEKHARAN SRI.JYOTHIBASU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL (DEPARTMENTAL) EXAMINATIONS, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED, DAK BHAVAN, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI - 110001. 2. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM, KERALA CIRCLE, B.S.N.L., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 001. 3. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS, NEW DELHI. SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP, SC, BSNL FOR R1 TO 3 SRI.T.P.M. IBRAHIM KHAN ASG THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.23272 OF 2010 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the respondents Department. 2. The petitioner, stated to be a member of the Schedule Tribe, applied for being considered for promotion to the post of Junior Telecom Officer against 35% quota, for which, schedule of the exam was issued as per communication dated 10.11.1999. Faced with the situation that she did not have six years of experience after joining the service, she moved the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.No.47 of 2000. Though initially she obtained an interim order in her favour, ultimately, that O.A. was dismissed by order dated 29.8.2000, inter alia holding that the six years of regular service referred to in the JTO Recruitment Rules is necessary for an employee to be WP(C).23272/10 2 eligible to appear in the screening test and that such service should be regular service. The applicant challenged that decision before this Court by filing O.P.No.10855 of 2003. That was dismissed by this Court on 4.4.2003 holding that the petitioner had not worked with the Department for a period of six years and the person whom she had shown as having obtained the benefit of a junior, was not similarly situated as the said person was junior to the petitioner only on account to the fact that he was appointed by promotion to the post of Telecom Assistant after the petitioner. The said judgment proceeds on the basis that the fact that the rule requires that the person should have completed six years was virtually admitted before the Division Bench of this Court. We are not inclined to entertain any contention, to the contrary, from the petitioner at this point of time, since, as already noted, the Tribunal decided O.A.No.47 of 2000 by clearly holding that six years of regular service is necessary to appear for the screening test even in terms of the decision of the larger bench of the Tribunal. Whatever be the correctness or otherwise of the decision of the Tribunal and of this Court in earlier round, we are of the view WP(C).23272/10 3 that the petitioner could not have re-agitated the matter before the Tribunal in a second round by filing the original application from which this writ petition arises. The earlier order of the Tribunal in O.A.No.47 of 2000 and the judgment of this Court in O.P.No.10855 of 2003 are rendered inter parties on the very particular issue that is now placed for consideration and, hence, the issue was barred by res judicata and the Tribunal was well within the jurisdiction to have passed the impugned order. We do not, therefore, find any illegality in the Tribunal having issued the impugned order. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN JUDGE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp WP(C).23272/10 4