IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 33137 of 2008(T)
1. A.P.ABOOBACKER, AREEKATTPARAMBIL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
... Respondent
2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
3. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT
For Petitioner :SRI.I.DINESH MENON
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :20/03/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC,J.
---------------------
W.P.(C).No.33137 OF 2008
------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of March, 2009.
JUDGMENT
Petitioner submits that he made an application for
conversion of his service as LSOS and also for extension. By
Ext.P1 proceedings of the RTA dated 7.8.2007 his request
for conversion as LSOS was rejected and in so far as the
extension sought for is concerned, a report was called for
from the Secretary. Ultimately, by Ext.P5 dated 25.3.2008
his request for extension was also rejected.
2. However, Ext.P1 in so far as it rejected his
request for conversion as LSOS was not challenged by the
petitioner. After Ext.P5 order was passed he filed Ext.P2
appeal, MVAA.No.353/2008 and the appeal was rejected
by Ext.P4 judgment dated 28th August 2008. Complaint in
this writ petition is that in Ext.P4 judgment the Tribunal has
not dealt with his grievance regarding conversion as LSOS.
WP(c).No.33137/08 /2/
3. In Ext.P5 all that has been dealt with was the case of
the petitioner for extension and this was for the reason that
his request for conversion as LSOS was already rejected by
Ext.P1. Ext.P1 was not the subject matter of Ext.P2 appeal and
it was therefore that conversion as LSOS was not dealt with by
the Tribunal n Ext.P4 judgment. I cannot therefore find fault
with the Tribunal in adopting this stand.
Therefore, if at all the petitioner was aggrieved by Ext.P1
to the extent his request for conversion is rejected, it was up
to the petitioner to have pursued his remedies.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/
WP(c).No.33137/08 /2/