Union Of India vs Mahendran T S/O Thalaimali V Aged About ... on 13 January, 2010

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Union Of India vs Mahendran T S/O Thalaimali V Aged About ... on 13 January, 2010

Bench: A.S.Bopanna

IN THE HIGH COU RT OF KARNATAKA AT }:3ANGALORE
D/~\'I'fi3D THIS THE 13"" DAY OF JANUARY_.2O i~(»)T'~V._

PRESENT

THE HONBLE 1\/IR.JUS'I'ICE_'.,   

AND 
THE HONBLE MR.;i'L,3:vS~T_ICE§.P;¢,S.'BVQ'}?ANVNA' 

WRIT }'1€TI'1'l(31$} N0s.93%§%g;a~40;r2t}10 (ﬁS'-'----CA}'l')

1. Union  _     
Rep. By its SeCret;s'1-"y';"""'--V. , 4'    H
Ministry ofComr1i1'ts3i§_;;:e1!,iQ11w "  
informatiQ11"i'éc:h.ii101o§§y" ' " 
EIeCt,1'0r1ic€-Vv_ Ni._1{ctfa1'£;."'v-_» ° _  
No.6. CGO <:omp:ex,    '

New I_)c:I11i M up 093'; % 

2. Th  Ii)i.:*,s;1§::;t<)r' ~Ge1'1e:'a~--3., V

 I_j)«i.fE:C!.tLc)rai¢. V
I35-:p»:1:r1:mVe13.,t. of 'I r_1f'@1fn1ati()z1 Te(:h1'10] ogy
Mii1.iSh_y of .C*Qrr'1I1fLt:;3icat:i011 8:

 I11f'()1'ma't;i()1'1 'I'é.(jhif1=01()gy.
 V E1ec:f.romi_c:s __?'v'i kC3aar1.

 NQV5, CGQ C.Q1"I'1pieX,
" " u irN€.f\v .E)é*1h1 ~«-..1" 10 003. ... Petitioners

[;§5y :C-rin"«P.Sﬂinesh Kuma1'«~ Adv.& CGC)



AND:

Shri. T.Malf1endran.

S / o.V.Tha1aimalai.

Aged about 47 years.

Working as Additional Direetor/Scientist. 

0/0 The Electronic Test and Development.*C>e1"1tevr.'"-i  .4

STQC Directorate, 1 « '_

Department of Information Tec%h.n'Qlog;y; .. 

Ministry of Communication :3: ET. ' .. l _

Ring Road Peenya Industria1'Es.tate, 

R/a 1728, em B Main, RPC Layrqur

Vijayanagar East, __     
Bangalore - 560 040. V '   "  :4   Respondent

(By Smt    
Sri. Basavaraj VE§(i'i'VE1'LL3]%l"c1.C'i'f;'j__--' Ad\{.:'l7o1' C / R)

These Writ1'.TE.etiti_oriV is 'filed L_'£I1C1€I' Articles 226 and
227 ofithe "C(3€11stit;§ti'tion«V"of India praying to quash the
order d;ate._c1-- lV4'.'1.2.,20O'9_pa_ssed in O.A.No.430/2009 on
the file. of ':_i'~C'e:nf;1f.al...~ Adminisi.rat:ive Tribunal.
Bar1g'al<)1'e'=Bench, Be1r1g"a1()1'e (AnnexurevA) by holding
that the pet.itirorie.r.s are Ciiily bound to obtain View of the
CBI,.before eonsideriiig the ease of the respondent for

 "Adhoe Pnornotrion.  """ "

Vi   Writ Peiiition ctciniiiigg; on for orders this day,
Gopzﬁa Go'v;rcla_ J.. made the fol1owing:--

ORDER

r _ '.:.'Tl1€S€ petitioras have (tome up for orders regarding ll _ nonvi"urr1isl.1ir:g of prealnble portion of Annexures and Since we have heard the learned Counsel for the petiiiionei' at i"equest for preliniinary hearing and disposing of l\it//' ,4} the pe.tit:i0n at this stage itself, we dispense with office objection.

2. These writ petitions are filed by the and its offic:er questioiiing the (zorreetness of the.in.Ee'i*ir1e;._'_f direcliion issued by the Central Adrﬁriiriistrative _Trib1i_nai----{in short 'CAT? in its interim order reads thus:

"Sri BrVeerabhVa.dra,'learned V'e.o'i--1i1se1 for the appe1i;>rnt.__ is:"pres~eni_,. 'M,Rajkumar, learned sjotrns-ei V'i--".orf the "'i7es'p0r-Mients seeks further, =tirn.e it'o.';'fiie..i'e_piy st'atement. As regards the direction_.oi' this 'T.'ri.bLi'n.ai to review the ease of _t;}..11ee "iii Ate-rrnwsf of instructions (:o:ntaine'd.fi'ri f?;aragra}')h i7.7.1. and 17.8.}. of OM c1ai;ed i'%'!=.'9... i'i)_92V.oi"--Depart.ment of Personnel and-. 'I'rair1ing.* the".._e(;.r.;r1se1 informs that the 1}.1211t'€"i-'.4h"c'.=S; b'eeri.Are{ei'*;7ed to the CBE. We fail to u_ndei'st[and why tire. respondeiit. Department has _=.;o ge.t the Vadyise oi CB1 for reviewing the ease of

-'.s._}~3ro_;no't:ion w1'ii(:h"'£s adrriittedly kept. in sealed _ (::)v5er«. It"i.§5 for the administrative authorities to "t.ai{e_a.V'deCi'sion in the matter and not for the "-i'__CBi'7. .'\2'Je the interim prayer and direct. the i*espori'd'en't.s to review the case of the applicant ""4for.p1*o~:1<£otion which is kept in the seated Cover, as per the instructions of the Department of A T Personnel and Training cited above within a V°_pe1'iod of four weeks from today and also file an '<1*ﬁ"ida\rit. rega1'ding the resuit. oi" st.1eh -a review before next' date of hearing. Call on i5. 1 .2010.

A Copy of this order shall be given to the learned counsel for the res ondents."

3. I,ea1"1i1ed St'..'--3.1'1dii1g CC)UI'iS€1 on behait' of t.he pet.ii,ior1ers submits that in View of clause 17.8.1 of----__the official :1'ieriiora.1'idt1r1i regeirding the pr<)C:edi.1re for] promotion, the appoint.ir1g authority should a1so-',4eonvs1iVlte-'t;1i1e_'"1 9' Central Bureau of InVest;igat.ion aI1d"'tL&KC tQtieirI"\?iew§ account. wherein the Depart:1nent1211 i§i"qiiii_riee are pendi1ig"€7or"C--. con.sid<«:rat,ion_ In this 1-egairdV,CC._t.i1e_A apApei:iar1_t-V approached the CBI for ()f'C).I1SE,E}.1.f":,t_J¥.i':CVV)V:i-K..atiC}"8l1ge)x5V1:1=bI'[email protected]€d the reminder letter and t4i1ei*ei'e~Arc3. it for them to review the ease oft'he idgjfovfﬁ by CAT in its interim orcter. 'ii1;iC.f€fO'I'€, 1-the petitioner has requested to quash the setmegf» _ in

4. It is not .r1e'c:eS's:,1i*y.<.i':or us to quash the interim direction giveri to.t.i*i.e Ap_eiit.ioiier by the CAT in its interim t.h-ough t,he"'***CA'i" has 1*efe1'1~e.d to the ot'fiei.ai 17.8.1 dated 14.9.1992 of Department ofPerso1i1"1eiC;irid Trairiing as the CAT has not taken into 'g(u'.0I1Si€i&~1"E3tti_()}i of the consultation to be made by the '~:petit;i"or1ei's to review the ease of the original applicant.

"«."'i'h'eret'ore, it wotzid suitiee for Us to direct. the petitioner "",here.iIi to file an applieat.ion before the CAT t.o deter its iiiterim direction giver}. to the peiii.io:r3e1'S or ex.t.entioi1 of time to c:oir11:)Iy with its iiiierini di1'€('.t,i01'l til} the co1'isLiIt,at.ioi1 \ FM./"/C

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court