Kerala High Court
Director General vs Giri Sankar M.G on 20 June, 2016
Author: Anil K. Narendran
Bench: C.T.Ravikumar, Anil K.Narendran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2017/21ST CHAITHRA, 1939
OP (CAT).No. 20 of 2017 (Z)
----------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 606/2014 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
ERNAKULAM BENCH, DATED 20-06-2016
PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 IN THE O.A.:
--------------------------------------------
1. DIRECTOR GENERAL
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION,
PANCHDEEP BHAVAN, COMRADE ROAD,
INDRAJITH GUPTA(CIG) MARG, NEW DELHI - 110 002.
2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR(ADM),
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION,
REGIONAL OFFICE(KERALA), PANCHDEEP BHAVAN,
NORTH SWARAJ ROUND, THRISSUR - 680 020.
3. REGIONAL DIRECTOR,
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION,
REGIONAL OFFICE(KERALA), PANCHDEEP BHAVAN,
NORTH SWARAJ ROUND, THRISSUR - 680 020.
BY ADV. SRI.T.V.AJAYAKUMAR
RESPONDENT(S)/APPLICANTS & 1ST RESPONDENT IN THE O.A.:
------------------------------------------------------
1. GIRI SANKAR M.G
S/O. V. MOHANAN NAIR,
RESIDING AT BHAGAVATHY COTTAGE,
BHAGAVATHY NADA P.O, BALARAMAPURAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 501.
2. ARSHAD .M,
S/O. ASSAINAR, RESIDING AT APPATTA HOUSE,
MOOLAD P.O, NADUVANNUR (VIA) KOZHIKODE - 673 614.
3. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF HEALTH, CENTRE SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI - 110001.
R1,R 2 BY ADV. SRI.K.A.HASSAN
R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.SHRI HARI RAO, CGC
R3 BY SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL
THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-04-2017, ALONG WITH
OPCAT. 24/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
O.P.(CAT).20/2017 2
OP (CAT).No. 20 of 2017 (Z)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
EXHIBIT P1:TRUE COPY OF THE O.A. NO.606/14 FILED BY RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 IN
C.A.T. ERNAKULAM BENCH DATED 8-8-2014.
EXHIBIT P2:TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED 30-6-2015 FILED BY THE
PETITIONERS IN O.A. NO.606/14.
EXHIBIT P3:TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER DATED 3-8-2015 FILED BY THE
APPLICANTS IN O.A. NO.606/14.
EXHIBIT P4:TRUE COPY OF THE M.A. DATED 26-5-2016 FILED BY THE APPLICANT
IN O.A. NO.606/14.
EXHIBIT P5:TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20-6-2016 OF THE CAT ERNAKULAM
IN O.A. NO.606/14.
EXHIBIT P6:TRUE COPY OF THE M.A. NO.691/16 DATED 29-6-2016 FILED BY THE
APPLICANTS IN O.A. NO.606/14.
EXHIBIT P7:TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7-7-2016 OF THE CAT ERNAKULAM
BENCH IN M.A. NO.00691/16 IN O.A. NO.606/14.
EXHIBIT P8:TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER NO.223 DATED 13-10-2016 ISSUED
BY THE 3RD PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P8(A):TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER NO.228 DATED 13-10-2016
ISSUED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P9:TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17-10-2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P10:TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 23-6-2016 OF THE COMMITTEE,
SOUTH ZONE.
EXHIBIT P11:TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF
THE RESULT OF PROVISIONAL SELECTION PANEL.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
EXHIBIT R1(E):TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.54-Z-12/14/CPIO/RTI-2016 DATED
9.3.17.
EXHIBIT R1(F):TRUE COPY OFO THE APPLICATION DATED 17.2.2017.
EXHIBIT R1(F):TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO. 54-Z-12/14/CPIO/RTI-2016
DATED 28.2.17.
EXHIBIT R2(A):TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28.12.2016.
O.P.(CAT).20/2017 3
EXHIBIT R2(B):TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25.7.2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT R2(C):TRUE COPY OF THE MARK LIST OF VOLLEY BALL FOR MEN.
EXHIBIT R2(D):TRUE COPY OF THE MARK LIST FOR SHUTTLE BADMINTON FOR
MEN.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A.TO JUDGE
C.T. RAVIKUMAR
&
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JJ.
==========================
O.P. (CAT). Nos.20 & 24 OF 2017
==========================
Dated this the 11th day of April, 2017
JUDGMENT
Ravikumar, J.
These original petitions are directed against the common order dated 20.6.2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench in O.A.Nos.606 and 653 of 2014. The subsequent common order dated 7.7.2016 in M.A.Nos.691/2016 and 692/2016 passed by the Tribunal in the aforesaid original applications are also under challenge. The petitioners herein were the respondents and the party respondents were the applicants, before the Tribunal. Union of India is the common respondent in both the original petitions. Owing to the commonness of the subject matter, the original applications were jointly heard and disposed of by a common order and therefore, O.P.(CAT).20 & 24/2017 2 we have heard the original petitions jointly and they are being disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the documents are referred to hereafter in this judgment in the order they are marked in O.P.(CAT).No.20 of 2014 unless otherwise specified.
2. The third petitioner/fourth respondent in the O.A issued Annexure-A1 notification in Ext.P1 for direct recruitment of meritorious sports persons for the post of Upper Division Clerk (for short 'UDC' only) and Multi Tasking Staff (for short 'MTS' only) in the Employees State Insurance Corporation, Kerala Region under the sports quota-2012. Admittedly, the said selection process was initiated pursuant to a direction issued by the ESI Corporation Headquaters vide letter No.A-12/23/1/07.E.II dated 19.04.2012. The party respondents in the O.Ps responded to the said notification and consequently, as part of the selection process, field trials and interviews were conducted. The selection committee recommended five candidates including the party respondents herein/applicants, O.P.(CAT).20 & 24/2017 3 under the sports quota in accordance with the priorities prescribed by DOPT in OM 14034/1/95-Estt (D) dated 4.5.1995. The list was submitted to the Headquarters along with a forwarding letter dated 10.12.2012. The first applicant/first respondent in O.A.No.606 of 2014 was included in the general category for the post of MTS category and the second applicant/second respondent was included in the OBC category for the post of UDC. The applicant in O.A.No.653 of 2017 also partook in the selection process and got selected and included in the same list in the general category, for appointment to the post of UDC. The ESI Headquarters examined the list and also the proposal/recommendation of the selection committee. However, the Corporation found certain irregularities in the procedures followed in the matter of selection by the regional office. Virtually the following irregularities were found:-
"1.Interviews of candidates have been conducted which is violation Hqrs., instructions dated 8/10/1990.
2.DOPT instructions and Hqrs. instructions envisage grant of preference according to the level of participation certificates of candidates. However, no such preference have been given by you while recommending O.P.(CAT).20 & 24/2017 4 recruitment."
3. Headquarters instructions referred thereunder were issued under Annexure-R1(f) dated 8.10.1990. The selection committee, according to the petitioners, had to follow the procedures/guidelines laid down by the DOPT as also headquarters instructions issued from time to time. Going by the same, no qualifying examination or interviews should be conducted for such selection. In tune with the same, the ESI Corporation issued Annexure-R1(g) letter dated 23.5.2014 to the Regional Director indicating the mandatory instructions to be followed by a selection committee.
(a) As per DOPT instructions, sports persons fulfilling the eligibility conditions have to be considered only in the order of preference of their level of participation at different levels of competition on the basis of certificates as prescribed.
(b) DOPT instructions do not envisage conducting of interview of candidates for recruitment of meritorious sports persons. Further H.Q vide instructions dated 8/10/1990 have also conveyed that no interview or qualifying examination should be held for this purpose.
O.P.(CAT).20 & 24/2017 5
According to the petitioners, while conducting the selection process which culminated in proposal/recommendation of the appointment of the party respondents, they were violated.
4. A perusal of the impugned common order dated 20.6.2016 would reveal that the reasons assigned by the petitioners for interfering with the selection process conducted by the selection committee which culminated in the recommendation for appointment of three UDCs and three MTS in various disciplines were virtually upheld by the Tribunal. In other words, the Tribunal found that the selection committee had deviated from the procedures laid down for recruitment and that the recruitment process could not be regularised as the selection was conducted after adopting a faulty procedure. However, the Tribunal found that the mistake that vitiated the selection process was committed by the petitioners/respondents before the Tribunal themselves and therefore, found force in the contention of the applicants that they should not be penalised for the blameworthy action on the part of the petitioners herein/respondents O.P.(CAT).20 & 24/2017 6 therein. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the petitioners herein to notify the applicants about the next recruitment to the post of UDC and MTS under sports quota and consider them despite being over aged or their certificates got outdated. The Tribunal granted the following reliefs:-
"The only relief that can be provided is to direct the respondents to notify the applicants about the next such recruitment to be made and consider the applicants despite the fact that they are overaged or their certificates are outdated as otherwise applicants in these O.As will suffer both these disqualifications on account of the cancellation of the faulty recruitment process followed by the respondents, for which the applicants cannot be held responsible or made to suffer."
5. Subsequent to the passing of impugned common order dated 20.6.2016 in the aforesaid original applications, the applicants filed miscellaneous applications seeking clarification before the Tribunal. The said applications are produced as Ext.P6 in both original petitions. The Tribunal considered the said applications and passed O.P.(CAT).20 & 24/2017 7 Ext.P7 order dated 7.7.2016. The operative portion of the said order reads thus:-
"2.We feel that the respondents knowing fully well that the matter is seized of by the Tribunal should have stayed the recruitment till the order is passed in these O.As. The respondents also did not seek permission or clarification to proceed with the recruitment. Even if a stay is not granted, the matter is subjudiced. The order issued by the Tribunal has attained finality and cannot be circumvented by the respondents.
Considering the pending court cases the respondents while again issuing the Employment Notice should have incorporated a declaration that the recruitment would be subject to the final outcome of the O.As. The respondent has the obligation of informing the Bench during hearing on 8.6.2016 that the posts were re-advertised on 8.4.2016. The Tribunal's order which has attained finality is directed to be implemented by the respondents. We notice that one of the applicants has applied for the post in the second notification dated 8.4.2016 and hence the finalization of the second recruitment process will have to be in compliance of the orders of the Tribunal.
It is on being aggrieved by Ext.P5 and Ext.P7 orders that the above original petitions have been filed.
O.P.(CAT).20 & 24/2017 8
6. We have heard the learned standing counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the party respondents and also the learned Central Government Standing Counsel.
7. We have already adverted to the nature of the impugned orders. As per the impugned Ext.P5 order, the Tribunal upheld the order of cancellation on the ground of adoption of faulty procedure by the selection committee. At the same time, the Tribunal issued a direction to the respondents to notify the applicants about the next such recruitment and to consider them for such selection even in case they became over aged or their certificates got outdated, by then. As noticed hereinbefore, the applicants/the party respondents herein sought for a clarification of the said common order dated 20.6.2016 and it resulted in Ext.P7 order. Evidently, even after taking note of the fact that pending O.A Nos.606 of 2014 and 653 of 2014, the vacancies were notified under Annexure-A1 and in pursuance thereof, a list was drawn, though subsequently cancelled, also the renotification of the said vacancies as per Annexure A7 dated 8.4.2016, the Tribunal O.P.(CAT).20 & 24/2017 9 as per Ext.P7 held that the order of the Tribunal had attained finality and therefore the respondents/petitioners are bound to implement the same. The Tribunal went on to hold that finalisation of the recruitment process could not be held as one done in compliance with the order of the Tribunal. The factual narration made hereinbefore, would reveal that the Tribunal upheld the position that the selection committee had adopted faulty procedure for conducting the selection process pursuant to Annexure-A1 and consequently, upheld the cancellation of the selection to the post of UDC and MTS under sports quota. It is pertinent to note that the party respondents have not challenged the common order dated 20.6.2016 passed by the Tribunal upholding the cancellation. In such circumstances, we are not called upon to consider the correctness or otherwise of the said order to the extent it upheld the cancellation of the selection made pursuant to Annexure- A1. In short, the question to be considered is whether the consequential direction issued by the Tribunal in Ext.P5 directing the petitioners to notify the next selection and to consider them in such O.P.(CAT).20 & 24/2017 10 recruitment even in case the applicants became over aged or the certificates held by them got outdated by then, could be sustained. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that since the applicants have responded to the subsequent notification dated 8.4.2016 and participated in the selection process, their action in not disclosing the factum of issuance of the second notification during the pendency of the original applications and their participation in the selection process are to be viewed as wilful and in such eventuality, the Tribunal ought not to have granted orders favourable to the applicants. The learned counsel further contended that since the applicants had not directly challenged Annexure-A7 notification dated 8.4.2016 and also had participated in the selection process conducted pursuant to Annexure-A7, they are not entitled to the benefits flowing from Ext.P5 or Ext.P7 orders. In short, it is contended that the Tribunal ought to have considered the fact that appropriate reliefs were not sought for and Annexure-A7 notification was not called in question and in such circumstances, the order virtually nullifying the O.P.(CAT).20 & 24/2017 11 second selection process ought not to have been passed.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the party respondents contended that the petitioners herein/respondents before the Tribunal could not have feigned ignorance of the pendency of the original applications challenging the cancellation of the selection process pursuant to Annexure-A1 and in such circumstances, being a selection conducted pending the said original applications, they could not be heard to contend that the Tribunal went wrong in vacating the second selection process. In other words, the essence of the contentions is that the very fact that Annexure-A7 notification dated 8.4.2016 was issued when original applications challenging the cancellation of the selection pursuant to Annexure-A1 notification were pending consideration before the Tribunal itself would suggest that the petitioners were virtually taking a risk and in fact, in fairness, as observed by the Tribunal in Ext.P7 order, they ought to have disclosed the said fact before the Tribunal and sought permission for going on with the selection process pursuant to Annexure-A7 notification. O.P.(CAT).20 & 24/2017 12 Having failed to seek and obtain permission to go on with the selection process pursuant to Annexure-A7 in respect of the very same vacancies which were notified under Annexure-A1, the respondents cannot lament about or raise grievance against the nature of the order and contend that the Tribunal illegally interfered with the second selection process. The nub of their contentions is that the direction of the Tribunal in Exts.P5 and Ext.P7 orders are bound to be complied with and the petitioners who were the respondents before the Tribunal cannot be permitted to wriggle out of the bounden responsibility to implement the said orders by taking advantage of their blameworthy actions.
9. We have already found that in view of the absence of any challenge against the order of the Tribunal to the extent it cancelled the selection process, we are not called upon to consider the sustainability of that part of the common order passed by the Tribunal. In short, we are only called upon to consider the directions issued by the Tribunal to notify the next recruitment to the applicants and to O.P.(CAT).20 & 24/2017 13 consider them even in case they became over aged or their certificates evidencing the factum of being meritorious sports persons got outdated based on the guidelines. In such circumstances, we have to consider necessarily the question as to under what circumstances the selection process initiated under Annexure-A1 happened to be cancelled, at the outset. It is indisputable and in fact, not disputed before us that such situation occurred solely due to the failure of the Regional Office as also the selection committee to adopt the procedures contemplated under Annexures-R1(f) and R1(g). The failure to adhere to such instructions was not occasioned due to any flaw or action on the part of the applicants. They had only responded to the notification and then, on being called upon to participate in the selection process they partook in the selection process. In such eventuality, if a wrong procedure or a faulty method of selection was adopted, the petitioners herein cannot wriggle out of the liability. At any rate, the petitioners cannot be heard to contend that whatever be the adverse and prejudicial impact the applicants have to put up with O.P.(CAT).20 & 24/2017 14 that and that petitioners cannot be asked to emendate it.
10. While considering the sustainability or otherwise of the directions issued by the Tribunal, we are of the view that we cannot lose sight of one important aspect. In the O.A.No.606/2014, the party respondents/applicants raised ground D which is worthwhile to be extracted for a proper disposal of the original petitions.
D).The inaction on the respondents (sic. inaction on the part of the respondents) has also affected the interest of the applicant in the following ways:-
a. The meritorious certificate produced and marked as annexure 4 cannot be used by the second petitioner, any more, since the validity of the same is only for two years.
b. At present, the applicant is aged 26 years. As far as she is concerned, it was the last opportunity for applying for any post in the sports quota since she has already attained 26 years.
Similar ground was raised by the applicant in O.A.No.653/2014 as well with reference to her age viz., 28 years.
11. As far as the applicant in O.A.No.606 of 2014 is concerned, it was the last opportunity for applying for any post in sports quota O.P.(CAT).20 & 24/2017 15 since he had already attained the age of 26 years. In the contextual situation, it is relevant to note that under Annexure-A1 notification as also Annexure-A7 notification, the upper age limit was prescribed as 27 years. In the case of the applicant in O.A.No.653/2014, she attained the age of 28 years. Admittedly, going by the notification, the meritorious certificates evidencing the fact that a person is eligible to be considered under the sports quota would remain valid only for a period of two years since the date of its issuance. It is pertinent to note that in the selection process initiated as per Annexure-A7 notification dated 8.4.2016, the applications submitted by the second applicant in O.A.606 of 2014 and the applicant in O.A.653 of 2014 were rejected on the ground that they were not in possession of a valid certificate to be included in the category of meritorious sports persons.
The fact that at the time when selection was conducted pursuant to Annexure-A1 notification, all the applicants were fully qualified for being considered as meritorious sports persons under sports quota was not at all in dispute. In fact, they were considered in the selection O.P.(CAT).20 & 24/2017 16 process initiated pursuant to Annexure-A1 and evidently, the selection committee had also recommended for their appointment as UDC/MTS. In such circumstances, it is evident that the apprehension of the applicants that owing to the mistake committed by the petitioners/respondents before the Tribunal, they would be deprived of chance for participating in the selection process under sports quota either on the ground of being over-aged or on the ground of their certificates got outdated due to the prescription of 2 years' period became reality and it was assigning the latter reason that in the case of the second applicant in O.A.606 of 2014 and in the case of the first applicant in O.A.653 of 2014 their applications were rejected. We have narrated the aforesaid aspects to consider the question whether the Tribunal had gone wrong in arriving at the conclusion that owing to the lapse or laches or mistake committed by the respondents whether the applicants would be deprived of the final chance for participating in the selection process to the aforesaid posts under the ESI Corporation. Evidently, it is a fact that owing to such mistake, in O.P.(CAT).20 & 24/2017 17 the case of the second applicant in O.A.606 of 2014 and in the case of the first applicant in O.A.653 of 2014, they were found ineligible to apply and consequently, their applications were rejected solely because of the fact that the certificates produced by them got out dated due to the prescription of two years as its validity period. When in a selection process, at the time of responding to the notification, the applicants were fully qualified and they were permitted to take part in the selection process and such selection process was later cancelled solely because of a lapse or a mistake or a flaw in the procedure adopted in the selection process, the applicants cannot be found fault with for the same. Admittedly, the selection process that culminated in the recommendation for appointment to the party respondents, conducted pursuant to Annexure-A1 had to be cancelled solely because of the failure on the part of the respondents in strictly adhering to the prescribed mandatory instructions in Annexures-R1(f) and R1(g). In such circumstances, when it is evident that the selection process got vitiated solely due to act or omission on the part of the O.P.(CAT).20 & 24/2017 18 official respondents, what is unjustifiable in restoring the last opportunity to such applicants and how it can be said that the Tribunal had issued orders beyond its jurisdiction? True that proper reliefs were not moulded by the applicants. To certain extent the petitioners are justified in attributing failure on the part of the applicants in not properly bringing on record the factum of issuance of subsequent notification and their response to it. But at the same time, we are of the view that the petitioners/official respondents cannot feign ignorance of the fact that at the time of issuance of Annexure-A7 notification dated 8.4.2016, they are re-notifying the same vacancies which were notified under Annexure-A1 and in respect of which a select list containing the names of the applicants was prepared. They were also fully aware of the fact that it is the cancellation of the said select list drawn pursuant to Annexure-A1 that was challenged by the applicants in O.A.Nos.606 and 653 of 2014. Being parties to the said O.As during their pendency they ought not to have issued Annexure- A7 without seeking and obtaining permission from the Tribunal. The O.P.(CAT).20 & 24/2017 19 action on the part of the petitioners in re-notifying the same vacancies and conducting selection can be treated only as an attempt to overreach an apprehending adverse order. At any rate, since the Tribunal was in seizin of the matter what the petitioners had done by re-notifying the vacancies and conducting the selection without permission is a patent wrong especially because it resulted in deprivation of the final opportunity to the second applicant in O.A.No.606/2014 and the applicant in O.A.No.653/2014 in participating in a selection process to the aforesaid posts under sports quota. In such circumstances, the observations made by the Tribunal that in all fairness the petitioners/respondent authorities ought to have brought the factum with respect to the issuance of Annexure-A7 notification and also sought its permission for proceeding with the selection process issued as per Annexure-A7 cannot be said to be inappropriate or illegal. In such circumstances, we are of the view that both the party respondents/applicants as also the official respondents/petitioners are guilty of not properly bringing to the O.P.(CAT).20 & 24/2017 20 notice the factum of issuance of Annexure-A7 notification dated 8.4.2016 in respect of the same vacancies which were notified under Annexure-A1. At the same time, one can say with certitude that it is the action on the part of the petitioners herein/the official respondents therein that is contumacious and contemptuous, as it was they who had re-notified the vacancies and conducted the selection process sans permission from the Tribunal. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the attempt on the part of the petitioners/official respondents to assail the impugned order to the extent it directed consideration of the applicants for the next recruitment process on the aforesaid ground rather, non disclosure of the factum of issuance of Annexure-A7 notification as also their participation in the selection process cannot be a reason for us to interfere with the directions issued by the Tribunal. The petitioners got no moral or legal right to accuse the applicants in respect of the aforesaid issue.
12. The next question is whether an interference is called for with the said direction? As noticed hereinbefore, a bare scanning of O.P.(CAT).20 & 24/2017 21 the impugned order would reveal that the Tribunal categorically arrived at the finding that the select list prepared pursuant to Annexure-A1 notification was cancelled solely because of the mistake committed by the respondent authorities/petitioners. In such circumstances, when a direction was issued based on equity by the Tribunal and by issuing such a direction as mentioned hereinbefore, if justice is done the question is whether in a bid to set right things should it be interfered with? In Roshan Deen v. Preeti Lal reported in AIR 2002 SC 331, the Hon'ble Apex Court held:-
"If justice became the byproduct of an erroneous view of law the High Court is not expected to erase such justice in the name of correcting error of law. The power conferred on the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is to advance justice and not to thwart it. In such circumstances the look out of the High Court is not merely to pick out an error of law through an academic angle but to see whether injustice has resulted on account of erroneous interpretation of law."
In such circumstances, when as per the impugned orders, when justice has been done, we do not find any reason to interfere with Ext.P5 or O.P.(CAT).20 & 24/2017 22 Ext.P7 orders. According to us, any interference with those orders will redound to the advantage of the petitioners who have committed the blameworthy action repeatedly. Consequently, these original petitions are dismissed.
Sd/-
C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE) Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN
(JUDGE)
spc/
O.P.(CAT).20 & 24/2017 23
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
JUDGMENT
September,2010
O.P.(CAT).20 & 24/2017 24