Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SRI.MANSOOR AHMED RAHAMATHULLA M. versus THE ADMINISTRATOR

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


SRI.MANSOOR AHMED RAHAMATHULLA M. v. THE ADMINISTRATOR - WP(C) No. 5255 of 2007(S) [2007] RD-KL 5044 (8 March 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 5255 of 2007(S)

1. SRI.MANSOOR AHMED RAHAMATHULLA M.,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE ADMINISTRATOR,
... Respondent

2. THE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,

3. THE SETTLEMENT OFFICER & CHAIRMAN,

For Petitioner :SRI.RAFFEEKH.K

For Respondent :SRI.SHAFIK M.ABDULKHADIR,SC,LAKSHADWEEP

The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

Dated :08/03/2007

O R D E R

J.B.KOSHY & T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ.

W.P.(C).NO.5255 OF 2007 and W.P.(C).NO.6124 OF 2007

Dated this the 8th day of March, 2007.



J U D G M E N T

Koshy, J.

The order of the Central Administrative Tribunal passed in application No. O.A.556/2006, regarding the selection for the post of trained graduate teachers in Lakshadweep is challenged in these two Writ Petitions. Selection list was published on 16.04.2005 (relevant extract is produced as Ext.P1 in W.P.(C).No.6124/2007). Petitioner in W.P.(C).No.6124/07 in that case was No.1. in the waiting list for the subject Hindi. Meanwhile all the persons in the main list were appointed. According to the Lakshadweep Administration other various vacancies arose subsequently and in 2006 another notification was published. The petitioner in W.P.(C).6124/2007 and the petitioner in 5255//07 applied for the new selection also. Before completing the selection, Lakshadweep administration cancelled the above. That cancellation was challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal by Ext.P3 order said that cancellation of the selection in the middle of the selection process is illegal and irregular and directed the Lakshadweep administration to complete the selection process. Accordingly selection process was completed and fresh list was published (Ext.P6 in W.P.(C).6124/07). Both petitioners submits that cancellation order of the selection process by the W.P.(C).NO.5255 OF 2007 2 Lakshadweep administration should not have been interfered by the Central Administration Tribunal as the selection processes was against NCTE norms and they were not parties to the O.A. before the Tribunal. However we note that they participated in the process of selection and they have not challenged that selection process.

2. Further grievance pointed out by the petitioner in W.P.(C). 6124/07 was that another person 5th respondent was appointed as a Maths Teacher. She was in the waiting list of Maths Teacher in the Ext.P1 selection process and same benefit should have been given to him also. 5th respondent was appointed in another subject and it is not clear from the averments that whether she was appointed before the new selection process started. It is also submitted by the Lakshadweep Administration that she was in the earlier selection list eligible to be appointed even earlier due to vacancy in Maths subject. But another candidate challenged the earlier select list. She was only appointed subsequent to the dismissal of the above application before the Tribunal and that was the reason for the delay in her appointment and her case is not comparable to the petitioner's case. If vacancy in Hindi arose before the new selection process started and if petitioner is eligible to be appointed, it is for the petitioner to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal itself for redressal of the grievance. If there is anything wrong in the final list published after new selection process, petitioners have to approach Central Administrative Tribunal and not this W.P.(C).NO.5255 OF 2007 3 court. Therefore W.P.(C).6124/07 is disposed of without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to approach Central Administrative Tribunal according to law.

3. As far as W.P.(C). 5255 is concerned, he applied for the second selection process also. According to the petitioner the above selection process was cancelled by the Administration correctly and it should not have been interfered by the Tribunal as new select list violate the NCTE norms. If that be so and present list has got any infirmity, petitioner has to file an objection and it is for the petitioner to challenge it before the Central Administrative Tribunal. Without prejudice to the right if any of the petitioners to approach Central Administrative Tribunal, these Writ Petitions are dismissed.

J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE.

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.

bkn


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.