IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 13018 of 2008(S)
1. K.C.BINDU, AGED 41 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL,
3. THE POST MASTER GENERAL,
4. THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST
5. TINTU K.P.,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.A.SHAFIK
For Respondent :SRI.JOMY GEORGE,(CGSC)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :09/06/2008
O R D E R
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI JJ.
-----------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.13018 OF 2008
-----------------------------------------------------
DATED THIS THE 9th DAY OF JUNE, 2008
J U D G M E N T
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The petitioner was the applicant in O.A.No.227/07 before
the CAT, Ernakulam Bench. The petitioner is working as a
Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Deliverer in Edakkad Post Office. When a
vacancy arose in Peruvayal which is a nearby place to her
residence, she applied for a transfer to that post on medical
grounds. Instead of transferring her, the said post was filled up
by redeploying the 5th respondent. Aggrieved by the said action
of the respondents, the Original Application was filed. She
prayed for quashing Annexure A1 by which the 5th respondent
was appointed by redeployment on 1.12.2006 and sought
consequential reliefs.
2. The respondents filed Exhibit P2 reply statement
contending that the said post was set apart to be filled up by
redeployment and therefore it was not available for being filled
up by transfer. The petitioner filed rejoinder disputing the said
W.P.(C)No.13018/08 -2-
claim.
3. Before the CAT, the petitioner contended that the decision
to set apart the vacancy to be filled up by redeployment is illegal and
is vitiated by mala fides. Further, the 5th respondent did not have
three years minimum service to make her eligible for redeployment. It
was also contended that she was accommodated in another post and it
was therefore unnecessary to post her at Peruvayal. The Tribunal
overruled those contentions. According to the Tribunal, the ineligibility
of the 5th respondent for the reason that she does not have the
requisite service or that she is already accommodated elsewhere is not
a ground available to the applicant to claim the post set apart for being
filled by redeployment and the applicant have no right to claim that
post. Taking the above view, the O.A. was dismissed. The petitioner
attacks the said decision in this writ petition.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner again
reiterated the aforementioned contentions which were unsuccessfully
canvassed before the CAT. The petitioner also attempted to make a
collateral challenge against the decision to set apart the post at
Peruvayal for being filled up by redeployment. In the O.A., what is
under challenge is only the appointment of the 5th respondent as per
W.P.(C)No.13018/08 -3-
Annexure A1. The collateral challenge raised against the decision to
earmark the post concerned to be filled up by redeployment cannot be
entertained by us in the absence of any pleadings in the O.A. Further,
we agree with the reasons and conclusions of the Tribunal that the
ineligibility of the 5th respondent for being posted at Pueruvayal is not
a point which can be canvassed by the writ petitioner/applicant, but
only by another person who has got better claim over the 5th
respondent for redeployment.
In the result, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed.
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,JUDGE.
M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE.
dsn