High Court Kerala High Court

The Union Of India vs Smt.D.P.Sreelatha on 5 October, 2010

Kerala High Court
The Union Of India vs Smt.D.P.Sreelatha on 5 October, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP (CAT).No. 197 of 2010(S)


1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY
                      ...  Petitioner
2. THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES,
4. THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST

                        Vs



1. SMT.D.P.SREELATHA, W/O.N.SANTHOSH,
                       ...       Respondent

2. SMT.B.S.LALITHA, D/O.SHIJU,

3. SRI.G.VIJAYAN, S/O.LATE GOVINDAN,

4. SRI.KISHORE SHERIF, S/O.M.M.SHERIF,

5. SRI.M.G.UNNIKRISHNAN PILLAI,

6. SRI.K.HARIKUMAR, S/O.KUNJUKRISHNAPILLAI

7. SMT.SINDHU P.M., W/O.B.PRATHAPAN,

8. SMT.ANITHAKUMARI S., W/O.RAVEENDRA NAIR,

9. SRI.SREEJITH, S/O.BHASI,

10. SMT.LEKHA T., W/O.SUBHASH K.A.,

11. SRI.R.BALAKRISHNA BHATT,

12. SRI.SAMUEL, S/O.THOMAS,

13. SRI.SHIBUMON.G.V.,

14. SRI.G.GOPAKUMAR, S/O.GOPINATHAN NAIR,

15. SMT.BINDHU R.S., W/O.LEELAKRISHNAN NAIR,

16. SRI.MANILAL C.R., S/O.RAJAPPAN,

17. SRI.P.SOMASEKHARAN PILLAI,

18. SMT.D.USHAKUMARI, W/O.S.SUKESHAN,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN

 Dated :05/10/2010

 O R D E R
                 C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, &
                    K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
                 --------------------------------------------
                     O.P. (CAT) No. 197 of 2010
                 --------------------------------------------
               Dated this the 5th day of October, 2010

                               JUDGMENT

Ramachandran Nair, J.

The order under challenge is an interim order issued by the

Central Administrative Tribunal permitting the applicant in the O.A. to

write departmental examination for promotion. Respondent’s

entitlement for the post is not decided by the Tribunal. Even though

petitioner contended that respondent is not eligible to write the

examination for want of regular service, we do not think there is any

scope for interference because while disposing of the O.A. if the

Tribunal finds respondent eligible, then Tribunal cannot order an

examination to be conducted only for the purpose of screening the

respondent. We therefore do not find any merit in the O.P, and

accordingly the same is dismissed. Petitioner can raise all contentions

in the O.A. before the Tribunal.

(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)
Judge.



                                               (K. SURENDRA MOHAN)
kk                                                           Judge.

      2




kk