Kerala High Court
Union Of India vs M.K. Vincent on 26 May, 2010
Bench: Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, S.S.Satheesachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 15138 of 2010(S)
1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESNTED BY SECRETARY
... Petitioner
2. THE CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE
3. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONR OF CENTRAL EXCISE
4. THE COMMISSIONR OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND
5. THE COMMISSIONR OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND
Vs
1. M.K. VINCENT, SEPOY, CENTRAL EXCISE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL,SC,CB EX
For Respondent :SRI.C.S.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :26/05/2010
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN
&
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ.
-------------------------------
W.P.(C).NO.15138 OF 2010 ()
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of May, 2010
J U D G M E N T
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
We have heard the learned Senior counsel for the Central Board of Excise and Customs and as also the learned counsel appearing for the respondent on the notice.
2. The short issue arising for decision is whether this Court, under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, should interfere with the interpretation given by the Central Administrative Tribunal to O.M.No.36034/6/90- Estt. (SCT) dated 2.4.1992 extracted at paragraph 9 of the impugned order of the Tribunal. The O.M. relates to age relaxation as admissible to Ex-servicemen for securing another higher civil appointment.
3. The respondent, an Ex-serviceman was appointed in the Central Excise Department in Group-D post. Later, he aspired WPC.15138/10 2 for being appointed to Group-C post by promotion. Group-C and Group-D are brought within the canopy of the O.M. dated 2.4.1992 as is clearly discernible from a plain reading of the portion of the O.M. quoted in paragraph 9 of the impugned order. Not only that, Annexure A15 communication from the Government of India showing a clarification is categoric that age relaxation to Ex-servicemen for promotion to higher cadre was considered by the Board and age relaxation is admissible for appointment and such relaxation includes relaxation admissible for promotion to the higher cadre.
4. With the aforesaid, the plea of the establishment is that an officer in service in Group-D ought to pass a particular qualifying examination before attaining the age of 45 years for being considered for promotion to Group-C. The Tribunal has taken the view that the relaxation applies for cadre to Group-C by promotion from Group-D. Therefore it makes no difference even where passing of an examination was a prescribed qualification for such promotion. In that view of the matter, we do not find any illegality in the Tribunal having taken the view in WPC.15138/10 3 favour of an Ex-serviceman that he is entitled to the benefit of the relaxation in age limit even in relation to passing of examination, which is required for movement of an officer from Group-D to Group-C. Having found that there is no illegality or error of jurisdiction in the impugned order, this writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN JUDGE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp WPC.15138/10 4