This court dismissed the writ petition holding that the petitioner's service was cognizable by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The court ruled the writ was not maintainable as the claim for promotion must be agitated before the CAT. Issues on merits were not considered.
Petition dismissed on the ground of non-maintenance; no merits considered.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI
TUESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2009 / 23RD POUSHA 1930
WP(C).No. 19167 of 2005(F) --------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
DR.JOSEPH THOMAS, S/O.V.A.THOMAS, RESIDING AT VELANKUNNEL HOUSE, ARAKULAM P.O., IDUKKI-685 591.
BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.) SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SMT.M.R.VALSA SRI.SREEKANTH.K.R SRI.K.A.NOUSHAD SRI.JIBU P THOMAS
RESPONDENT(S):
ADV. SRI.FRANCIS JOSEPH KURISINKAL, ADDL.CGS FOR R1 & R2
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 19167 of 2005
APPENDIX
EXHIBITS
| EXT.P1- | TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 26.5.99 |
|---|---|
| EXT.P2- | TRUE COPY OF O.M.36035/7/95-ESTT.(SCT) DATED 16.1.98 |
| EXT.P3- | TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED NIL |
| EXT.P4- | TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 5.5.04 |
| EXT.P5- | TRUE COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT NO.1/04. |
| EXT.P6- | TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER SENT ALONG WITH THE APPLICATION DATED JANUARY, 2005. |
(TRUE COPY)
P.A TO JUDGE
V.GIRI, J
W.P.(C).19167/2005
Dated this the 13th day of January, 2009
JUDGMENT
Petitioner has been working as Assistant Research Officer in the second respondent and aspired for promotion as Assistant Director or as Deputy Director. Admittedly, service comes within the purview of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Petitioner had moved the Tribunal with a claim which, as evidenced by Ext.R2-C, was rejected. It is clear that the petitioner's service under the second respondent is cognizable by the Central Administrative Tribunal. If that be so, petitioner's claim could be agitated only before the CAT. Writ petition is not maintainable in the first instance. Therefore the same is dismissed. I make it clear that I have not considered the issue on merits. Other contentions of the petitioner are left open.
V.GIRI, Judge
mrcs
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition challenging service matters cognizable by the Central Administrative Tribunal is maintainable in this court.
Whether promotion claims of a Central Government servant should be agitated before the Central Administrative Tribunal.
DR.JOSEPH THOMAS
THE UNION OF INDIA
THE DIRECTOR, CENTRAL COUNCIL FOR RESEARCH IN HOMEOPATHY
V.GIRI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
