IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP (CAT).No. 322 of 2010()
1. THOMAS C.C.
... Petitioner
Vs
1. UNION OF INDIA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :19/10/2010
O R D E R
C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, &
K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
--------------------------------------------
O.P. (CAT) No. 322 of 2010
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of October, 2010
JUDGMENT
Ramachandran Nair, J.
Petitioner after retirement as Law Officer, South-Western
Railway, filed O.A. before the Tribunal contending that he should have
been promoted to the post of Senior Law Officer on 29.3.2007. The
Tribunal however noticed that petitioner as Chief Law Assistant was
functioning in the capacity of Assistant Law Officer and the actual
promotion as Asst. Law Officer was given to him only on 29.3.2004.
He was promoted as Law Officer on 4.2.2006. Petitioner’s case is that
he did not have the qualifying service for promotion to the post of
Senior Law Officer because his promotion to the post of Asst. Law
Officer as well as to the post of Law Officer was delayed by the
Railways. According to the petitioner he was the only person eligible
to be considered for promotion. However, on facts, the tribunal found
that the petitioner was not the seniormost person eligible to be
considered for promotion. Further, selection to the post of Senior Law
OP (CAT) 322/2010 2
Officer was a selection process and on account of administrative delay
there was delay in effecting promotion. It is the finding of the Tribunal
that petitioner cannot complain of any arbitrary or discriminatory
action on the part of the railways because he has no right to be
appointed to the post created by the Railways. A review application
later filed before the Tribunal was also dismissed and O.P. (CAT) is
filed challenging the order in the O.A. and against rejection of Review
Petition.
2. Before us also, petitioner raised the very same contentions that
were raised before the Tribunal. We do not find any merit in the case
because, merely because Railways created a post of Senior Law
Officer, the same does not mean that it should be filled up by a person
who is not qualified, though he may be senior. According to the
petitioner, even as of now, the post remains vacant and nobody is
appointed. We do not think that there is any need for us to find the
reason why the Railways keep the post vacant. Since petitioner retired
more than 2-1/2 years back, he cannot complain of filling of vacancy
after his retirement. So long as he has not established his eligibility for
OP (CAT) 322/2010 3
promotion, we cannot find fault with the order of the Tribunal in the
O.A.
O.P. (CAT) is accordingly dismissed.
(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)
Judge.
(K. SURENDRA MOHAN)
Judge.
kk OP (CAT) 322/2010 4