Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Kerala High Court

Dr.E.Vivekanandan vs Indian Council Of Agricultural ... on 17 December, 2007

Bench: K.Balakrishnan Nair, P.N.Ravindran

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 25391 of 2006(S)


1. DR.E.VIVEKANANDAN, AGED 56 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. DR.K.SUNIL KUMAR MOHAMMED,
3. REETA JAYASHANKAR, AGED 46 YEARS,
4. P.JAYASHANKAR, AGED 46 YEARS,
5. K.C.GEORGE, AGED 60 YEARS,
6. DR.V.CHANDRIKA, AGED 59 YEARS,
7. DR. RAMACHANDRAN N., AGED 54 YEARS,
8. DR. P.U.ZACHARIA, AGED 46 YEARS,
9. DR. P.KRISHNA KUMAR, AGED 47 YEARS,
10. DR. PRATHIBHA ROHIT, AGED 45 YEARS,
11. DR. K.R.MANMADHAN NAIR, AGED 57 YEARS,
12. DR. T.S.VELAYUDHAN, AGED 56 YEARS,
13. DR. P.KALADHARAN, AGED 47 YEARS,
14. DR. G.MOHANRAJ, AGED 57 YEARS,
15. DR. P.K.ASHOKAN, AGED 46 YEARS,
16. DR.V. KRIPA, AGED 44 YEARS,

                        Vs



1. INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE PRESIDENT,

3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY (P),

4. THE DEAN (RISHERIES),

5. DR.MOHAN JOSEPH MODAYIL,S/O.SHRI JOSE,

6. THE SECRETARY,

7. DR.S.AYYAPPAN,

8. THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.)

                For Respondent  :SRI.P.JACOB VARGHESE, SC, ICAR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN

 Dated :17/12/2007

 O R D E R
          K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N. RAVINDRAN, JJ.
          -------------------------------------------------------
                    W.P.(C).NO.25391 OF 2006-S
          -------------------------------------------------------
           Dated this the 17th day of December, 2007.

                               JUDGMENT

Balakrishnan Nair, J:

The petitioners challenge Ext.P1 order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.823/2005 and also Ext.P2 order in R.A.No.21/2006 in that O.A. The original application was filed challenging Annexure-A1 order and Annexure A8 which is the relevant portion of the Rules dealing with appointment on tenure basis. Annexure A1 is an order renewing tenure of appointment of the 5th respondent as Director of Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Cochin, for a further period up to 31.3.2009 or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

2. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the I.C.A.R submitted that the 5th respondent has been posted as a member of the Agricultural Scientific Recruitment Board, New Delhi, by order dated 7.12.2005. So, he relinguished the charge of the present post and the next person in seniority, one Dr.N.G.K. Pillai,  WPC.NO.25391/2006 .

has been put in charge of the post of Director also.

3. But, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the 5th respondent was selected for the present assignment by virtue of his continuance in service on the strength of the order extending his term of appointment. If that order is quashed, the 5th respondent would not have been selected for the present assignment.

4. The extension of term of the 5th respondent has ended as a result of the present development. So, there will be a fresh selection to the post of Director, CMFRI, in accordance with the Recruitment Rules. The petitioners and other eligible candidates can contest for the post, if so advised. Since the 5th respondent no longer blocks their way, it is unnecessary for us to consider the validity of the extension granted to him. Further the petitioners do not stake their claim for being considered for appointment to the post of Member, Agricultural Scientific Recruitment Board, New Delhi. Therefore, it is unnecessary for us to consider the validity of the order impugned, as per which the tenure of appointment of the 5th respondent was extended.

5. In view of the above position, challenge against Annuexure  WPC.NO.25391/2006 .

A1 has become infructuous. Challenge against Annexure A8 in the present context, is only hypothetical in nature. This Court will not decide an issue unless it is absolutely necessary for the disposal of the case. So, the contentions, in support of the prayer for challenging Annexure A8, are kept open. The petitioners have also a prayer to resort to direct recruitment to the post of Director of C.M.F.R.I. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that steps are being taken to make recruitment to the post of Director, according to the ICAR rules.

In view of the above position, the writ petition is closed without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioners.

K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE.

P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE.

  cl

WPC.NO.25391/2006         .
                     4

WPC.NO.25391/2006         .
                     5