IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 11815 of 2009(S) 1. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM, ... Petitioner 2. THE PRINCIPAL GENERAL MANAGER, 3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, Vs 1. THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ... Respondent 2. JOBY.C.M., S/O.LATE C.O.MATHAI, For Petitioner :SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.) For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS Dated :08/04/2009 O R D E R K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 11815 OF 2009-S ----------------------------------------- Dated 8th April, 2009. JUDGMENT
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The respondents in T.A.No.25/2008 before the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench are the writ petitioners. The
subject-matter of the T.A was the claim of the 2nd respondent for
appointment under the dying-in-harness scheme. Pending final disposal of
the matter, the Tribunal, after hearing both sides, passed Ext.P5 interim
order. the said order reads as follows:
“This case was finally heard on 10.2.2009 and it was
reserved for orders. Counsel for the respondents was directed
to produce the relevant records. The contention of the
respondents throughout the reply statement as well as during
the arguments was that the applicant was considered during the
Circle High Power Committee Meeting held on 5.6.2003 and it
approved his appointment in a Group D post due to non-
availability of suitable Group C post.
The respondents did not produce the records for quite
some time. Thereafter, the counsel for the respondents was
again contracted by the Registry (PS) to ensure that the records
are produced in the Tribunal. Reluctantly the respondents
produced a few photo copies of the documents without
producing the note-sheets and the entire file in original.
However, from the photo copies produced by the respondents it
is seen that the aforesaid Committee recommended the
WPC 11815/2009 2
applicant for appointment to the Group C post of TOA on
compassionate ground in relaxation of the Recruitment Rules
in Ernakulam SSA subject to verification of certificate in proof
of qualification. It is not known at what stage the manipulation
had taken place in the respondents’ office and converted his
appointment in a Group D post.
The Tribunal believes in the submissions of the BSNL,
being a Central Govt. Undertaking. We expect that BSNL
would behave in (a) responsible manner as expected of a
responsible public sector undertaking. Filing false affidavits
before the Court is a very serious matter. Apart from the
consequences to be faced by the officer who filed the false
affidavit, the credibility of the organisation itself (is) in doubt
before the Court.
I, therefore, in the first instance, direct the General
Manager to look into this matter seriously and take remedial
measures immediately including appointment of the applicant
as TOA as recommended by the Circle High Power Relaxation
Committee. Shri.PMM Najeeb Khan, counsel for the
respondents, being an officer of this Court, shall also ensure
that the entire records in original properly flagged shall be
produced in the Court on the next date of hearing. List as Part-
Heard on 27.5.2009.”
Aggrieved by the above order, this Writ Petition is filed by the respondents
in the T.A.
2. The writ petitioners point out that the 2nd respondent/applicant
was cleared for appointment in the Group C post of TOA. But, by a
mistake, it was stated in the reply statement as Group D post. Because of
the ban introduced by the Corporate office of the BSNL, the applicant
cannot be offered appointment in Group C post. But, the Tribunal has
WPC 11815/2009 3
passed a peremptory order to appoint the applicant as TOA. In view of the
ban on appointment, it may not be possible to appoint him now. Further, it
is pointed out that pending disposal of the T.A., it was not proper to issue
such a direction. Therefore, the writ petitioners pray for the intervention of
3. Having regard to the nature of the order passed and the reasons
given by the Tribunal for the same, we feel that the writ petitioners should
first move the Tribunal itself, place the relevant facts and pray for recalling
or modifying the direction to appoint the 2nd respondent/applicant. The writ
petitioners are mainly aggrieved by the said direction. We feel that at this
stage, it is not proper for this Court to interfere with the matter.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed, but without prejudice to the
contentions of the petitioners and their right to approach this Court again, if
occasion arises in future.
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE.
M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE.