Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Chitralekha K vs Director General on 7 August, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
ERNAKULAM BENCH
Original Application No. 192 of 2012
Tuesday, this the 7th day of August, 2012
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.R Raman, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Mr. K. George Joseph, Administrative Member
Chitralekha K., Pulickal House,
Thattambilly PO, Alappuzha. ..... Applicant
(By Advocate - Mrs. C.G. Preetha)
V e r s u s
1. Director General, Prasar Bharathi,
News Service Division,
All India Radio, New Delhi, Pin-110 001.
2. The Station Director, All India Radio,
Thiruvananthapuram, Pin-695 014.
3. R. Ravikumar, Kizhekkeveliyil,
S.N. Pura PO, Cherthala, Alappuzha. Pin-688 582.
4. K.O. Sasidharan, K.O. House, Adoor,
Kadachira PO, Kannur-670 621. ..... Respondents
[By Advocates - Mr. Sunil Jacob Jose, SCGSC (R1-2) &
Mr. Manuvilsan (R3)]
This application having been heard on 07.08.2012, the Tribunal on the
same day delivered the following:
O R D E R
By Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.R. Raman, Judicial Member -
The applicant challenges the selection to the post of Part Time Correspondent in Akashavani at Alappuzha and Kannur Districts. It is the case of the applicant that she had also applied for the post but her application was rejected on the sole ground that she is not a permanent resident within 10 Kms. radius as required by notification issued in this behalf. It is her further case that party respondents Nos. 3 & 4 are also not permanent residents within that area and they are also not entitled to be selected.
2. The official respondents have filed their reply statement wherein they submitted that the applicant has not submitted any application for the post in question. The applicant was not able to meet the argument of the learned counsel for the official respondents by producing the acknowledgment or any other material to show that the application had been properly submitted before the authorities.
3. If that be so the applicant cannot be considered as a candidate for the post. If so her argument that respondents 3 & 4 are not entitled to be selected cannot be treated as a service dispute but can only be treated as a public interest litigation. Learned counsel for the applicant in these circumstances sought to withdraw the Original Application without prejudice to her right to approach the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala.
4. In the circumstances, we dismiss the Original Application as withdrawn.
(K. GEORGE JOSEPH) (JUSTICE P.R RAMAN) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER "SA"