IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 24393 of 2010(S)
1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES,
... Petitioner
2. POST MASTER GENERAL, NORTHERN REGION,
3. DEPARTMENT PROMOTION COMMITTEES,
4. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
Vs
1. P.M.PADMANABHAN, S/O THE LATE
... Respondent
2. N.K.BALACHANDRAN, POSTMAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC
For Respondent :SRI.O.V.RADHAKRISHNAN (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :16/08/2010
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
&
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ.
-------------------------------------------
W.P(C).No.24393 OF 2010
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of August, 2010
JUDGMENT
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.
1.We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the
learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent, who
was the applicant before the Tribunal in O.A.349/09, from
which, this writ petition arises. We also record the appearance
of Adv.T.C.Govindaswamy on behalf of the second respondent.
2.The writ petitioners (establishment) is aggrieved by order
dated 26.7.2010 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, which,
essentially, is an interim order directing the establishment to
pass appropriate orders promoting the applicant
(Padmanabhan), first respondent herein, with effect from 2005
and to report such matter to the Tribunal. Today, we are also
shown by the learned counsel appearing for Padmanabhan that
WPC.24393/10.
2
the Tribunal had passed yet another order subsequently on
4.8.2010 essentially reiterating the earlier stand.
3.Padmanabhan had agitated a claim that he is eligible for being
considered for promotion. That issue was subject matter of
O.A.704/06, which was disposed of by the Tribunal. The
establishment filed a review petition against that decision.
That was also decided against the establishment. The matter
came to this Court. The Division Bench affirmed the decision
of the Tribunal, thereby the establishment stood obliged to
consider the case of Padmanabhan for promotion. Ultimately,
Padmanabhan moved the Tribunal alleging that the
establishment has courted contempt by disobeying the
directions. The establishment filed a counter affidavit. On the
basis of those materials, the Tribunal disposed of the contempt
application holding that no contempt is made out. It was
specifically within the knowledge of the Tribunal at that point
of time that N.K.Balachandran, second respondent herein, had
been appointed in preference to the applicant Padmanabhan.
WPC.24393/10.
3
4.We are clear in our mind that the closure of the contempt
proceedings does not deprive Padmanabhan of his right to sue,
if any, as against the appointment of Balachandran. He filed
O.A.349/09 from which this writ petition arises.
5.It is submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing for
Padmanabhan as also the learned counsel for the
establishment that the parties had placed before the Tribunal
elaborate pleadings finalising their stand. It appears that the
establishment was sticking on to the statutory rules while the
applicant Padmanabhan tries to get the benefit of the earlier
judgment in O.A.704/06. We are clear in our mind that in such
a situation, the issue before the tribunal was as to whether the
establishment was justified in preferring Balachandran over
Padmanabhan for being appointed as against the vacancy in
question. We are also told that the tribunal could have also
considered whether both Padmanabhan and Balachandran
could have been accommodated in the same category having
WPC.24393/10.
4
regard to the availability of vacancies, subject to the rules and
the decisions binding inter partis.
6.In the aforesaid context, we are clear that the impugned order
dated 26.7.2010 of the tribunal and the subsequent order
issued on 4.8.2010, on which day, we had admitted this writ
petition, would not stand in the way of the tribunal deciding
the matter finally on merits.
7.For the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the impugned order
Ext.P7 dated 26.7.2010. As a consequence, the tribunal will
treat its order dated 4.8.2010 as one that does not stand. It
would accordingly proceed to hear parties and dispose of the
matter on merits finally, the fundamental issue being the inter-
se dispute between Padmanabhan and Balachandran to
preferential treatment for appointment against the post. We
clarify that this judgment does no,t in any manner, answer any
of the contentions on merits and all issues are left open for the
tribunal to decide. Having regard to the nature of the case,
WPC.24393/10.
5
the tribunal will make an endeavour to dispose of the matter
expeditiously.
Sd/-
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,
Judge.
Sd/-
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,
Judge.
kkb.19/08.