Review Application Nos. 21/09 & 20/09 In Original Application No. 114/2008. Case: 1. T. M. Sudha, Senior Town Planner, Town and Country Planning Department, Government of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram; 2. T. Pushparaj, Deputy Director of Survey, Pathanamthitta Vs 1. Biju Prabhakar, Assistant Secretary On Probation. , Directorate of Survey and Land Records, Trivandrum; 2. Union of India, Secretary To Government of India, Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, New Delhi; 3. Union Public Service Commission, Secretary, Upsc., New Delhi; 4. State of Kerala, Chief Secretary To The Government, Government of Kerala, Trivandrum; 5. Principal Secretary, General Administration Special 'A'. Department, Trivandrum; 6. Principal Secretary Revenue. , Department of Revenue, Government Secretariat, Trivandrum. Central Administrative Tribunal
| Case Number | Review Application Nos. 21/09 & 20/09 In Original Application No. 114/2008 |
| Counsel | P. B. Suresh Kumar, R. Sreeraj, S. Radhakrishnan, Tpm Ibrahim Khan, Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil, R. Prem Sanker |
| Judges | Dr. K. B. S. Rajan (Judicial Member) & K. Noorjehan (Administrative Member) |
| Issue | Kerala Public Services Act, 1968 - Sections 2; KERALA STATE & SUBORDINATE SERVICES RULES, 1958; Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; Administrative Tribunals Act,1985 - Sections 22(3), 22(3)(f); Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order . 47, Rules 1 |
| Judgement Date | March 13, 2009 |
| Court | Central Administrative Tribunal |
Judgment:
Dr. K. B. S. Rajan (Judicial Member), (Ernakulam Bench)
-
These Review Applications have been filed praying for review of order dated 29th August 2008 in OA No. 114/2008. The Review Applicants are not a party to the aforesaid O.A.
-
According to the review applicants, the aforesaid order has prejudicially affected their career prospects and hence, they have a right to prefer these Review Applications. For the reference purposes, RA No. 21/09 is taken into account.
-
In the aforesaid OA No. 114/2008, the applicant therein has claimed the following relief:
(a) declare that Annexure A1 order passed by the 3rd respondent is patently illegal.
(b) quash Annexure A1 order passed by the 3rd respondent.
(c) declare that the applicant will not be holding a substantive post in the State Civil Service till he is appointed substantively to the post of Deputy Collector after the declaration of probation.
(d) Declare that the applicant is serving in connection with the affairs of the State under the State Govt. in a gazetted post in a substantive capacity involving duties comparable in importance and responsibilities to that of the Stat Civil Service in a non civil service department, till he is substantively appointed in the State Civil service.;
(e) declare that the applicant is eligible to be included in the zone of consideration for appointment by selection the Kerala of IAS in the light of the nomination by the Principal Secretary --Revenue under whom he is working at that time.
(f) Direct the respondents to include the applicant in the zone of consideration for selection and appointment to the Kerala Cadre of IAS under the IAS (Appointment by Selection) Regulation 1997.
-
And the Tribunal allowed the OA and the operative portion of the said order dated 29th August 2008 reads as under:
16. Thus, as long as the applicant has not been confirmed in the post of Dy. Collector, his lien being in the non -State Service, he is entitled to be considered for appointment to the post of IAS from that source.
17. In view of the above, the OA is allowed. Annexure A-1 order is quashed. It is declared that the applicant is entitled to be considered for appointment to the IAS cadre under the Non-State Civil Service source, he having fulfilled the requisite conditions as contained in clause 4 of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Selection) Regulation 1997. The applicant shall be included in the zone of consideration for selection and appointment to the Kerala Cadre of IAS under the IAS (Appointment by Selection) Regulation 1997, if he is otherwise eligible. Under the circumstances there shall be no orders as to costs.
(Annexure A-1 in the above mentioned OA is the same as Annexure RA-4 in the Review Application, whereby the request of the applicant for inclusion of his name for consideration for nomination for inclusion in the zone of consideration for selection to IAS.)
-
According to the Review Applicants, the error apparent on the face of records, justifying the review applications is as given in Ground A, which reads as under:
The right of the first respondent to be considered for inclusion in the zone of consideration for selection for appointment to the subject post not referred to in Annexure RA4 order was not brought to the notice of this Hon'ble Tribunal by the parties to the Original Application, when the Original Application was disposed of and as such, this Hon'ble Tribunal did not consider the said issue in the matter of declaring that the first respondent is entitled to be considered for inclusion in the zone of consideration for selection for appointment to the subject post. Annexure RA1 order of this Hon'ble Tribunal is therefore, vitiated by errors apparent on the face of record.
-
Other grounds are to substantiate on merit that the applicant in OA No. 114/08 cannot be considered for appointment to the IAS, as he does not fulfil the requisite qualifications as prescribed for in the regulations.
-
After notice was issued, Respondent No. 1...
To continue reading
Request your trial