Kerala High Court
T.Vijayakumar vs State Of Kerala Represented By The ... on 26 August, 2013
Author: Babu Mathew P.Joseph
Bench: Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Babu Mathew P.Joseph
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH
MONDAY,THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2013/18TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935
OP(KAT).No. 4371 of 2013 (Z)
----------------------------------------
O.A NO:1948/2013 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
-------------------
PETITIONERS:
---------------------
1. T.VIJAYAKUMAR, AGED 48 YEARS,
S/O THANKAPPAN, ATTENDENT, VETERINARY HOSPITAL,
ARYANAD, TRIVANDRUM DISTIRCT-695 542,
RESIDING AT JAYABHAVAN, URIYAKODE, VELLANAD,
TRIVANDRUM-695 543.
2. G. ASOKA KUMAR, AGED 50 YEARS,
S/O GOPALAN NADAR, ATTENDANT, VETERINARY HOSPITAL,
KULATHOOR, TRIVANDRUM-695 583
RESIDING AT CHAMPANAVILA VEEDU, KODANGAVILA
ATHIYANNUR, TRIVANDRUM-695 122.
3. K.SANAL KUMAR, AGED 50 YEARS,
S/O KUTTAPPAN PANICKER, ATTENDANT, CDIO,
PALODE, TRIVANDRUM-695 562
RESIDING AT MULAYANKUZHI HOUSE, VELIYAMKODE,
MARANALLOOR, TRIVANDRUM-695 512.
4. JYOTHISH, AGED 37 YEARS,
S/O LARSON JG, ATTENDANT,
DISTRICT ANIMAL HUSBANDRY HOSPITAL, THAMPANOOR,
TRIVANDRUM-695 023, RESIDING AT JAYA BHAVAN, MULAKONAM,
OORUTTAMBALAM, TRIVANDRUM-695 507.
5. P.VINCENT, AGED 67 YEARS,
S/O PHILIPOSE NADAR, ATTENDANT, VETERINARY DISPENSARY,
OTTASEKHARAMANGLAM, TRIVANDRUM-695 125
RESIDING AT MANU BHAVAN, KADUMTHITTA, VAZHICHAL,
TRIVANDRUM-695 507.
6. T. VIJAYA RAJ, AGED 48 YEARS,
S/O THANKAPPAN,ATTENDANT, VETERINARY HOSPITAL,
ARYANAD, TRIVANDRUM-695 542,
RESIDING AT JAYABHAVAN, URIYAKODE,
VELLANAD, TRIVANDRUM-695 543.
Msd. ...2/-
..2..
OP(KAT).No. 4371 of 2013 (Z)
----------------------------------------
7. VIMALAKUMARI, W/O JAYARAJAN, AGED 42 YEARS,
ATTENDANT, VETERINARY HOSPITAL, AYRANAD,
ATTENDANT, VETERINARY BIOLOGICAL INSTITUTE,
PALODE, TRIVANDRUM-695 543.
8. R. SACHU, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O RATNARAJ,
ATTENDANT, SLBP HEAD QUARTERS,
TRIVANDRUM-695 009, RESIDING AT CHRISTU BHAVAN,
CHANGA, VELLANAD, TRIVANDRUM-695 543.
9. MOHANDAS.J, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. JAMES,
ATTENDANT, IAH & VB, PALODE, TRIVANDRUM-695 562,
RESIDING AT AMAL COTTAGE, KALLAYAM P.O, TRIVANDRUM-695 543.
10. J.SHAJI, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O JOHNSON,
ATTENDNAT, IAH & VB, PALODE, TRIVANDRUM-695 562,
RESIDING AT KOTTUVILAKATHUVEEDU, ANTHIYOORKONAM,
KALLODE P.O, TRIVANDRUM-695 571.
BY ADVS.SRI.T.V.GEORGE
SRI.JIMMY GEORGE (THADATHIL)
RESPONDENTS:
------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
ANIMAL HUSBANDRY DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
TRIVANDRUM-695 001.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY,
DIRECTOR OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, TRIVANDRUM-695 033.
3. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICER OF THE
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM P.O, TRIVANDRUM-695 039.
R1&R2 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.NOBLE MATHEW
R3 BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 09-12-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
Msd.
OP(KAT).No. 4371 of 2013 (Z)
-----------------------------------------
APPENDIX
---------------
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:
--------------------------------------
EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF O.A NO 1948/2013 BEFORE
THE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26-08-2013 PASSED BY
THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN O.A NO 1948/2013.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:
-----------------------------------------
NIL
\\TRUE COPY\\
P.A.TO JUDGE.
Msd.
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN &
BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH, JJ.
....................................................................
OP(KAT) No.4371 of 2013
....................................................................
Dated this the 9th day of December, 2013.
'C.R.'
J U D G M E N T
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.
1.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.
2.Petitioners were applicants before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal. They were persons trained in artificial insemination. At one stage, Government permitted them to work as private Artificial Inseminators. On a change in policy, private parties are prohibited from engaging in such activities. Such trained unemployed persons were absorbed as part time contingent employees in the Department of Animal Husbandry under the orders of the Government. The petitioners belong to that group. In due course, they were promoted as Attenders in the respective hospitals/dispensaries. In terms of the relevant Special Rules, they are entitled to be considered for appointment by transfer as Live Stock Inspectors Grade-II. The petitioners, however, wanted to be excluded from the selection process by the Public Service OP(KAT)4371/13 -2- Commission. They went to the Tribunal saying that the competent authority may be directed to exercise the power of exemption in that regard.
3.The Tribunal, rightly, said that the power of exemption is to be sparingly used and it is a reserve power to be exercised only on valid grounds. When a power to relax a Rule is protected while making a Rule, the power to relax has to be always understood as an exception and as only as the reflection of the existing power to deal with extraordinary circumstances. Any power to relax has always to be understood as one to be exercised in exceptional situations. If a power to relax were to be treated otherwise, that would be in affront to fairness, transparency and hence, would be arbitrary, having regard to Part-III of the Constitution of India.
4.All that the petitioners have to now undergo is a selection process, which will be done by the Public Service Commission.
5.For the aforesaid reasons, we do not think that the learned Tribunal was wrong in law or in jurisdiction in having dismissed the original application filed by the petitioners. OP(KAT)4371/13 -3-
6.Before us, the petitioners have sought for a further relief; that is to say; a challenge to the Special Rules. That is beyond the purview of the reliefs sought for in the original application filed before the Tribunal, and therefore, the visitorial jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in L.Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and Others [(1997) 3 SCC 261] cannot be extended to widen the scope of this original petition to include reliefs not claimed and grounds not raised before the Tribunal. Under such circumstances, we dissuade ourselves from expressing anything on the merits of the so-called challenge that the petitioners want to place as against the statutory rules.
In the result, this original petition fails. The same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.
(THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) (BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE) jg