Kerala High Court
B.Anil Kumar vs B.Anil Kumar on 19 November, 2012
Author: Babu Mathew P. Joseph
Bench: Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Babu Mathew P.Joseph
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALAAT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH
MONDAY,THE 2ND DAYOF SEPTEMBER 2013/11TH BHADRA, 1935
OP (CAT).No. 960 of 2013 (Z)
-----------------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER IN O.A.NO. 118/2012 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH DATED 19-11-2012
PETITIONER/5th RESPONDENT IN THE O.A. AND 2ND APPLICANT IN THE R.A.:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B.ANIL KUMAR, AGED 52 YEARS
G.D.S.M.D/MC ,
C/O.SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICE,
KOLLAM POSTAL DIVISION,
KOLLAM - 691 001
BY ADVS.DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.)
SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD
SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM)
SRI.ANOOP.V.NAIR
RESPONDENTS/APPLICANT AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 AND 6 IN THE O.A. AND
APPLICANTS 1&3 IN THE R.A.:
------------------------------------------
1. S.SUBHASH
G.D.S.M.D KUZHITHURA DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, KOLLAM DIVISION
RESIDING ATTHAZHAYIL
KUZHITHURA P.O, ADINADU NORTH,
KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 001
2. UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF POSTS,
GOVEERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI - 110 001
3. THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL
KERALA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033
4. THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES
KOLLAM CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 691 001.
5. RAJINI.S,
POSTMAN,
C/O. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICE,
KOLLAM POSTAL DIVISION, KOLLAM - 691 001.
6. SINDHU.R,
G.D.S.M.P,
C/O.SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICE,
KOLLAM POSTAL DIVISION, KOLLAM - 691 001.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.SAJITH KUMAR V.
R2 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA
THIS O.P (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-09-2013 ALONG WITH
O.P.(CAT) 997/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP (CAT).No. 960 of 2013 (Z)
----------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXT.P1. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.11.2012 IN O.A.NO. 118/2012 OF THE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.
EXT.P2. TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.NO.118 OF 2012 FILED BEFORE THE CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.
EXT.P3.TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS
DATED 22.8.2012.
EXT.P4.TRUE COPY OF THE REV IEW APPLICATION NO.5/2013 WITH AFFIDAVIT FILED
BY THE PETITIONER AMND RESPONDENTS 5 AND 6.
EXT.P5.TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.2.2013 IN R.A.NO.5/2013 IN
O.A.NO.118/2012.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS
EXT.R1(a) ATRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.12.2012 IN O.A.NO.408/2012 OF THE
HONOURABLE CAT.
EXT.R1(b) A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11/12/2012 IN O.P.(CAT) 4096 OF
2012.
EXT.R1(c) A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 17.12.2009 ISSUED BY THE
SR.SUPERINTENDENT OF POSTS, KOLLAM.
EXT.R1(d) A TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMERY OF RESERVATION POINTS AS ON
31.12.2008 ISSUED BY THE SR.SUPERINTENDENT, KOLLAM DIVISION 2012.
EXT.R1(e) A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.B2/4.1/2012 DATED 22.11.2012
ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
/TRUE COPY/
P.S.TO JUDGE
kvr/
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN &
BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JJ.
---------------------------------------------------
O.P.(CAT) Nos.960 & 997 of 2013
---------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2013
JUDGMENT
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.
O.A.Nos.394 & 395 of 2012 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench were subject matter of O.P.(CAT) Nos.4096 & 4097 of 2012. The petitioners in those original petitions are the petitioners in O.P.(CAT) No.997 of 2013, one among the captioned cases.
2. In considering the afore noted original petitions filed challenging the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, this Court is seen to have elaborately dealt with all issues arising for decision, including as to the impact of the percentage of marks and also by making reference to O.A.No.118 of 2012. The analysis by the Bench and the contents of the judgment delivered on 11.12.2012 on O.P.(CAT) Nos.4096 & 4097 of 2012 had left nothing that could have been raised in any application for review before the Tribunal after that round of original petitions before this Court. O.P.(CAT) Nos.960 & 997/13 -2-
3. Be that as it may, it appears that certain review petitions were carried to the Tribunal and orders were issued by the Tribunal holding that if those review petitions are entertained, that would be essentially opening up a new litigation in the form of an original application before it. While the learned senior counsel for the petitioners criticizes the procedure adopted by the Tribunal by saying that the Tribunal did not even list the matter before the Bench, in our considered view, that exercise does not merit a visit by us in exercise of authority under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. We say this in particular because, as already noted, petitioners in O.P.(CAT) No.997 of 2013 were parties to O.P.(CAT) Nos. 4096 & 4097 of 2012. Those original petitions were actually filed by them. Now, the petitioner in O.P.(CAT) No.960 of 2013 is one who had got his case worsted by the verdict rendered in O.A.No.118 of 2012 on 19.11.2012. If he had not challenged it at that point of time, we are unable to visualize any right in him to have moved an application for review before the Tribunal feigning ignorance of the proceedings which were heard before this Court in the form of O.P.(CAT) Nos.4096 & 4097 of 2012. This circute of mode is used by him leading to yet another order in review jurisdiction by the Tribunal. On that premise, we are of the O.P.(CAT) Nos.960 & 997/13 -3- considered view that he was not entitled to file O.P.(CAT) No.960 of 2013, either against the order on the review petition or against the original order issued on 19.11.2012 in O.A.No.118 of 2012.
4. The learned senior counsel pointed out that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had issued interlocutory orders in Application for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.35223 of 2012. We have looked into that, provided to us in the form of a photostat. We see that the said S.L.P. arises from judgment dated 20.12.2011 in O.P.No.1095 of 2011. That was not one of those cases referred to by us above. Not only that, O.P.No.1095 of 2011 is one of those cases which were decided in a bunch as per judgment dated 20.12.2011 to be quoted as W.P.(C) No.36443 of 2007 and connections.
5. While the learned senior counsel for the petitioners says that there were issues of law to be projected in the review petitions before the Tribunal, we are of the firm view that the decisions of the Tribunal insofar as they relate to O.A.No.118 of 2012 were not available for consideration through a review application by the Tribunal after the verdict of this Court in O.P.(CAT) Nos.4096 & 4097 of 2012. This we O.P.(CAT) Nos.960 & 997/13 -4- say more particularly because, the contents and impact of the decision making process in O.A.No.118 of 2012 were also considered pointedly by the Division Bench while deciding O.P.(CAT) Nos.4096 & 4097 of 2012. Not only that, the petitioner in O.P.(CAT) No.960 of 2013, who was one among the respondents in O.A.No.118 of 2012, had not challenged that original order by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court at least contemporaneous with O.P.(CAT) Nos.4096 & 4097 of 2012.
6. In the aforesaid premise, we find no ground to entertain these original petitions.
In the result, the original petitions are dismissed.
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN JUDGE BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH JUDGE kvr/3-9