Dismissed¶60

C.K.Suresh v. Indian Council for Agriculture Research

Kerala HC5 Mar 2025OP (CAT)/248/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227; OP(CAT) 248/2019; High Court of Kerala; Central Administrative Tribunal Ernakulam Bench; OA 577/2014; RA 3/2019; ICAR; CIFT; Functional Group II Laboratory Technician versus workshop staff; T-3 Machine Operator; T-1 to T-6 promotions; ITI Trade Certificate Mechanic General Electronics; belated service grievance after 12 years; upset of seniority; re-option old TSR; Annexure A-7 representation; petition dismissed 05-03-2025.

What did the court decide?

The Division Bench found no illegality, perversity or fallacy in the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal and therefore declined to invoke its supervisory powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. ¶59

C.K.Suresh Vs Indian Council for Agriculture Research — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2025)

¶1

2025:KER:23762

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1946

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 577/2014 DATED 05.12.2017 AND RA

¶8

NO.3 OF 2019 DATED 13.02.2019 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,

¶9

ERNAKULAM BENCH

¶10

PETITIONER/APPLICANT IN OA:

¶11

C.K.SURESH, AGED 49 YEARS
T-3, MACHINE OPERATOR, FISH PROCESSING DIVISION,
C.I.F.T., COCHIN-682 029.

¶12

BY ADV P.V.MOHANAN

¶13

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN OA:

¶14

1 INDIAN COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURE RESEARCH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NEW DELHI - 110 001.

¶15

2 THE DIRECTOR CENTRAL INSTITUTE OF FISHERIES TECHNOLOGY, KOCHI-29.

¶16

BY ADVS.

¶17

SRI.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR, SC, ICAR
T.K.SREEKALA

¶18

THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.03.2025, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

OP(CAT) 248/2019 2

¶20

2025:KER:23762

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

K. V. JAYAKUMAR, J

¶23

Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.577/2014 dated 05.12.2017 as well as in R.A.No.3/2019, whereby the claim of the petitioner/applicant has been rejected, the applicant, C. K. Suresh, preferred this OP(CAT) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶24

The facts in a narrow compass are as follows:

¶25

The petitioner/applicant is working as T-3 Machine Operator in the Processing Division of the Central Institute of Fisheries Technology [for short, ‘CIFT’], Kochi. The CIFT is under the control of respondent no.1/Indian Council for Agricultural Research. The main grievance of the petitioner/applicant is that, he was wrongly posted and placed in the Functional Group II of Laboratory Technician, instead, ought to have been posted to Functional group of workshop staff. His qualification is an ITI Trade Certificate in the trade of Mechanic General Electronics, and could have got two promotions from T-1 to T-6 had he been posted in the Functional Group of workshop staff. The case of the petitioner/applicant is

¶26

OP(CAT) 248/2019

¶27

¶28

2025:KER:23762

¶29

that, due to an error on the part of respondent no.2, he was posted in Functional Group-II of Laboratory Technician.

¶30

Though the petitioner submitted several

¶31

representations to the respondents, there was no positive response from them, therefore, knocked the doors of the Tribunal claiming the following reliefs:

¶32

"(i) Direct the respondents to consider Annexure A-7 and pass orders thereon within the time limit.

¶33

(ii) To declare that the applicant's initial appointment in functional group of Lab Technician was wrong and he ought to have been appointed in the functional group of workshop staff and engineering staff.

¶34

(iii) To permit the applicant for re-option to the old TSR.

¶35

(iv) Issue any other order or direction as deemed just, fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case."

¶36

The stand of the respondents before the Tribunal and

¶37

before us is that the applicant has raised his grievance after a lapse of about twelve years from the date of his entry into service.

¶38

The Tribunal, noticing the rival contentions of the parties, rejected the claim of the petitioner/applicant holding that, any change in the Functional Group would likely upset the seniority of many employees.

¶39

OP(CAT) 248/2019

¶40

¶41

2025:KER:23762

¶42

The learned counsel for the respondents/Union of India

¶43

supported the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal. According to Sri. P. Santhosh kumar, no interference is warranted in this matter.

¶44

Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant would submit that the Tribunal has rejected the claim without correctly appreciating the questions of fact and law and liable to be interfered with.

¶45

We have heard the rival submissions of the counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.

¶46

The Tribunal, noticing the rival contentions of the counsel for the parties, dismissed the claim of the petitioner/applicant. We will be failing in our duty if we do not extract the order of the Tribunal.

¶47

“14. It appears that the applicant began to feel the tectonic shift when, to his chagrin, he saw that his contemporaries / juniors in the functional group of Workshop are getting faster promotions. After carefully examining the rival contentions of the parties in this case regarding the initial posting of the applicant in the functional group of Laboratory Technicians, we are of the view that the contentions of the respondents are more probable than the aspirational contentions of the applicant who wish to come out of the functional group of Laboratory Technicians to the functional group of workshop where he could earn quicker promotions without securing any additional educational qualifications.

¶48

The respondents point out in their reply statement that the applicant has been getting his timely

¶49

OP(CAT) 248/2019

¶50

¶51

2025:KER:23762

¶52

promotions and that he has the prospects of getting promotions of T-3 to T-5 even while working under the functional Group of Laboratory Technicians in his capacity as Machine Operator. Respondents state that he has already availed of promotions from T-1 to T-3. One of the significant aspects we note in this case is that nearly 12 years after his joining the institute in the functional group of Laboratory Technicians as T-1, the applicant is raising a grievance that his placement in that functional group was wrong and has occurred as a mistake on the part of the administrators. In support of his case, the applicant relies on Annexures A-1 and A-3 recommendatory letters issued by the administrative officers of CIFT, Kochi whenever he makes a representation reiterating his grievance. We feel that if at all he was not happy and aggrieved with his posting as T-1 in the Functional Group of Laboratory Technicians, he should have immediately requested the appointing authority to post him in the Workshop Staff, if he had preferred that functional Group. After having allowed the water to flow under the bridge so long and after enjoying all the fruits and benefits including a foreign training he could secure while working in the Functional Group of Laboratory Technician, he cannot be heard to contend at this distant point of time that his initial appointment as T-1 in the functional Group of Laboratory Technician was a "mistake" occurred to the respondents.

¶53

It appears that he has garnered the support of some sympathisers like the Administrative officers of CIFT, but respondent nos. 1 and 2 rightly did not pay much heed to the grievances raised by the applicant. It appears to us that any change in the Functional Group at this late point of time can lead to upset the seniority of many people and other consequences. Suffice it to say that the tardy attempt of the applicant to agitate the issue raised in this Original Application and his belated search for greener pastures within the organisation are not acceptable at this point of time. We are of the view that there is no merit in this Original Application and hence we dismiss the same.”

¶54

OP(CAT) 248/2019

¶55

¶56

2025:KER:23762

¶57

The reasoning of the Tribunal is that the

¶58

petitioner/applicant had enjoyed the fruits of his appointment as T-1 in the Functional Group of Laboratory Technician for the past 12 years. Therefore, after such a long period, the contention that his appointment was a mistake committed by the department, cannot be entertained. The Tribunal, further opined that the change of Functional Group after about 12 years would adversely affect and upset the seniority of the employees.

¶59

We do not find any illegalities, perversities, much less fallacy in the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal for invoking the powers vested in this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶60

OP(CAT).No.248/2019 fails and it stands dismissed.

Sd/-

AMIT RAWAL JUDGE

Sd/-

K. V. JAYAKUMAR

JUDGE

Sbna/

OP(CAT) 248/2019

2025:KER:23762

¶70

APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 248/2019

¶71

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶72

EXHIBIT P1TRUECOPYOFTHEORDERINOA
NO.180/00577/2014 DATED 5.12.2017.
EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN MA NO.180/111/2019
AND REVIEW APPLICATION NO.180/00003/2019
DATED 13.2.2019.
EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE OA NO.577/2014.
EXHIBIT P3(A1).A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
6/7/2009
EXHIBIT-P3(A1)(A)A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BY CIFT ON
28.8.2009.
EXHIBIT-P3(A2)A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER FROM CIFT TO ICAR
DATED 23.11.09.
EXHIBIT-P3(A3)A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER FROM THE ICAR
DATED 26.2.2010.
EXHIBIT-P3(A4)A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16.9.2011.
EXHIBIT-P3(A5)A TRUE COPY OF THE SAID LETTER DATED
11.09.2012.
EXHIBIT-P3(A6)A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER FROM THE ICAR
DATED 8.10.2012.
EXHIBIT-P3(A7)A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION TO THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 22.02.2014.
EXHIBIT-P4A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT OF THE
2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P4(R2)(A)TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.18-1/97-ESTT.IV
DATED 3.2.2000 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT
REGARDINGQUALIFICATIONSANDCAREER
ADVANCEMENT OF TECHNICAL EMPLOYEES OF ICAR.
EXHIBIT-P4R2(B)TRUE COPY OF APPENDIX II OF ICAR HANDBOOK OF
TECHNICALSERVICESWITHREGARDTO
CLASSIFICATION OF TECHNICAL POSTS INTO
VARIOUS GROUPS.
EXHIBIT-P5REJOINDER FILED BY THE APPLICANT.
EXHIBIT-P5(A8)TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 31.3.2014 FROM 2ND
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P5(A9)TRUE COPY OF REPLY FROM 1ST RESPONDENT BY
THEIR LETTER DATED 24.4.2014 RECEIVED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT.

¶73

OP(CAT) 248/2019

¶74

¶75

2025:KER:23762

¶76

EXHIBIT-P5(A10)
EXHIBIT-P5(A11)
EXHIBIT-P5(A12)
EXHIBIT-P5(A13)

¶77

TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4.3.2015.
TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.4.2014.
TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1.5.2015.

¶78

TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF
OPERATING OF INSTRUCTIONS RAISED BY STANSTED
FLUID POWER LTD.

¶79

EXHIBIT-P6REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS TO
THE REJOINDER DATED 19.5.2015 OF THE
APPLICANT.
EXHIBIT-P7ADDITIONAL REJOINDER FILED BY THE APPLICANT.
EXHIBIT-P7(A14)TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BY THE
APPLICANT DATED 20.7.2016.
EXHIBIT-P7(A15)TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT DATED 10.8.2016.
EXHIBIT-P7(A16)TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE
TECHNICAL SERVICE OF ICAR.
EXHIBIT-P7(A17)TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 23.7.2016 TO SRI.SAJU.
EXHIBIT-P7(18)TRUE COPY OF THE ANNUAL PERFORMANCE
APPRAISAL REPORT ON 31.5.2015.
EXHIBIT-P8REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE REPONDENTS TO
THE ADDITIONAL REJOINDER DATED 1.9.2016 OF
THE APPLICANT.
EXHIBIT-P9:ADDITIONAL REJOINDER FILED BY THE APPLICANT.
EXHIBIT-P9(A19)TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.2.2006
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P10ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE
RESPONDENTS TO THE ADDITIONAL REJOINDER
DATED 24.3.2017 OF THE APPLICANT.
EXHIBIT-P11MISCELLANEOUSAPPLICATIONFILEDFOR
AMENDMENTTHEORIGINALAPPLICATION
DT.14.10.2017.
EXHIBIT-P12TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW APPLICATION.
EXHIBIT-P12(RA1)TRUECOPYOFTHEORDERINOA
NO.180/00577/2014 DATED 5.12.2017.
EXHIBIT-P12(RA2)TRUE EXTRACT OF GROUP I, II AND III OF
APPENDIX II AND QUALIFICATIONS SET IN FOR
GROUP II AND III.
EXHIBIT-P12(RA3)TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.8.1996.

¶80

OP(CAT) 248/2019

¶81

¶82

2025:KER:23762
EXHIBIT-P12(RA4)TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER F.NO.19(6)/2007-E.IV
DATED 19.12.2008.
EXHIBIT-P12(RA5)TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER F.NO.19(6)/2007-E.IV
DATED 27.5.2009.
EXHIBIT-P13APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN
PREFERRING THE REVIEW APPLICATION.

C.K.Suresh v. Indian Council for Agriculture Research

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.K.Suresh v. Indian Council for Agriculture Research

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India Vs Alexander George

Union of India, Vs K.C.Prakash

Union of India Vs Jaikrishnan Narayan

Union of India Vs K.Retheesh

Bindu C. Vs State of Kerala

Director of Accounts (Postal) Vs Thomas Pothen