Netticadan Antonio vs Union Of India on 23 October, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 1 of 2005(A)


1. NETTICADAN ANTONIO, INSPECTOR OF CENTRAL
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE & CUSTOMS,

3. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE,

4. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE

5. ANAND KUMAR J., SUPERINTENDENT OF

                For Petitioner  :SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

                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 :23/10/2008

 O R D E R
     K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
                   -------------------------
                    WP(C) No. 1 of 2005
                ---------------------------------
        Dated, this the 23rd day of October, 2008

                       J U D G M E N T

Balakrishnan Nair, J.

The petitioner in this writ petition challenges the

constitutional validity of Article 16(4A) as also Exts. P4 and

P6 orders of the Central Government issued purportedly on

the strength of Sub Article 4A of Article 16 of the

Constitution of India. Now, it is common case that the

validity of Sub Article 4A of Article 16 has been upheld by

the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in M.Nagaraj

& Others Vs. Union of India & Others, reported in 2006

(8) SCC 212.

2. If the petitioner is aggrieved by Exts.P4 and P6

orders, his remedy lies before the Central Administrative

Tribunal. This Court cannot consider the validity of them at

the first instance. In the result, the writ petition fails and it

WP(C) No.1/2005
-2-

is dismissed. But this will not affect the rights, if any, of the

petitioner to challenge Exts.P4 and P6 orders before the

CAT.

(K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE)

(M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE)

jg