Dismissed

P.v.Babu v. Union of India and Others

Kerala HC18 Jul 2011OP (CAT)/2303/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a writ appeal challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's order. The Court held that ITI qualification is a mandatory requirement for the post of Operator (Ice plant), negating the petitioner's claim based solely on seniority and five years of service.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Appeal was dismissed with no merit found in the petitioner's contention regarding qualification requirements.

P.v.Babu Vs Union of India and Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN

¶5

MONDAY, THE 18TH JULY 2011 / 27TH ASHADHA 1933

¶6

OP (CAT).No. 2303 of 2011(Z)

¶7

---------------------------OA.165/2010 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH

¶8

PETITIONER

¶9

-----------------P.V.BABU, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.P.K.VASU, ASSISTANT OPERATOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FISHERIES POST HARVEST TECHNOLOGY & TRAINING (NIFPHATT) KOCHI - 682 016 RESIDING AT: NIFPHATT QUARTERS, PULLEPPADY, KOCHI - 682 018.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY SRI.G.SHYAM RAJ SMT.KALA T.GOPI

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

--------------1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE (DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, DAIRYING AND FISHERIES) NEW DELHI - 110 001.

¶13

2. THE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FISHERIES POST HARVEST TECHNOLOGY & TRAINING (NIFPHATT) KOCHI - 682 016.

¶14

3. SHRI.K.CHANDRAMOHANAN NAIR, OPERATOR (ICEPLANT) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FISHERIES POST HARVEST TECHNOLOGY & TRAINING (NIFPHATT) KOCHI - 682 016.

¶15

ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, SG OF INDIA FOR R1 & 2 GOVT.PLEADER, SMT.T.B.RAMANI.

¶16

THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

O.P.(C.A.T.) NO.2303/2011

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXTS:

¶20

EXT.P1: COPY OF ORDER OF THE LEARNED CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM BENCH IN O.A.NO.165/2010 DECIDED ON 18.5.2010.

¶21

EXT.P2: COPY OF O.A.NO.165/2010 DT.16.2.2010 ALONG WITH ITS ANNEXURES FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE C.A.T., ERNAKULAM BENCH.

¶22

EXT.P3: COP OF REPLY STATEMENT DT.9.4.2010 FILED BY THE OFFICIAL RESPONDENTS IN O.A.NO.165/2010

¶23

EXT.P4: COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DT.17.4.2010 FILED ON BEHALF OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶24

//TRUE COPY//

¶25

PA TO JUDGE.

¶26

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ.

¶27

O.P.(C.A.T).No.2303 OF 2011

¶28

Dated this the 18^th day of July, 2011

¶29

J U D G M E N T

¶30

~~~~~~~~~~~

¶31

C.N.Ramachandran Nair, J.

¶32

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Assistant Solicitor General who took notice, appeared and argued the matter. After hearing the parties and after going through the Tribunal's order, we do not find any merit in the contention raised by the petitioner because the required qualification for appointment as Operator (Ice plant) is ITI with five years qualifying service. The appellant's case is that ITI qualification is not required and five years qualifying service is sufficient to get the post. The appellant being senior to the 3^rd respondent should be preferred in appointment is his case. We do not find any merit in the contention because the Rule specifically mentions that ITI is a required qualification, which only the 3^rd respondent has. Consequently, we dismiss the Writ Appeal.

¶33

(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE)

¶34

(P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE)

¶35

P.v.Babu v. Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.v.Babu v. Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India, Vs K.Chelliah

P.Mohammed @ Kunhani Vs the Regional Transport Officer, Taxation

J.Rajashekaran Nair Vs State of Kerala & Ors.

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Cochin Vs Sri.T.K.Sanalkumar, Vaduthala, Kochi

Cadbury India Ltd. Vs the State of Kerala

T.B.Valsala Vs Union of India and Others