High Court Kerala High Court

T.S.Nishat vs Union Of India on 30 May, 2008

Kerala High Court
T.S.Nishat vs Union Of India on 30 May, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RP.No. 818 of 2004(S)


1. T.S.NISHAT, AGED 35 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS,

3. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS,

4. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS,

5. THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY

                For Respondent  :SRI.JOHN VARGHESE, ASSISTANT SG

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI

 Dated :30/05/2008

 O R D E R
        K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI JJ.
        -----------------------------------------------------
                       R.P.NO.818 OF 2004
                                 IN
                   W.P.(C)No.28650 OF 2004
           -----------------------------------------------------
           DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF MAY, 2008

                            O R D E R

Balakrishnan Nair, J.

The petitioner prays for review of the judgment on the

ground that this Court proceeded on the assumption that the

respondents have filed a counter affidavit and they have raised a

contention therein that there were not sufficient number of

vacancies available for considering the petitioner who is a

Preventive Officer for promotion to the post of Superintendent

(Customs). The petitioner points out that in fact no counter

affidavit was filed and therefore the respondents could not have

taken any defence that there were not sufficient number of

vacancies to consider the petitioner for promotion.

2. We notice that in this writ petition no counter affidavit

was filed by the respondents. Therefore the assumption made by

this Court that the respondents have filed a counter affidavit is

wrong. It is an error apparent on the face of the record. We feel

R.P.NO.818 OF 2004 -2-

that the case of the petitioner should be considered after the

respondents filed a counter affidavit in the writ petition. Accordingly,

the judgment under review is recalled. W.P.(C)No.28650/04 is

restored to file.

K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,JUDGE.

M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE.

dsn