IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH TUESDAY,THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2013/31ST VAISAKHA 1935 OP(KAT).No. 1739 of 2013 (Z) ----------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA 866/2013 of KERALA ADMINISTRATIVETRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 03-05-2013 PETITIONER: ------------------ P.RATHNAKARAN, G.644, SUB INSPECTOR GRADE, POLICE CONTROL ROOM KASARAGOD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, KASARAGOD 671121. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 3. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 4. MOIDEENKUTTY SC P.O., ASI GRADE, HOSDURG POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671121. BY SRI.NOBLE MATHEW, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-05-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: AS OP(KAT).No. 1739 of 2013 (Z) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1- : A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.A.NO. 866 OF 2013 DATED 3- 5-2013 OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXHIBIT P2-: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION (O.A.NO. 866 OF 2013) FILED BEFORE THE KERALA ADMINSTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ALONG WITH ANNEXURES. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE AS THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JJ. .................................................. O.P.(KAT) No.1739 of 2013 ....................................................... Dated this the 21st day of May, 2013. JUDGMENT
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.
We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
2. The short issue that arises for consideration is as to whether we need to visit Ext.P1 order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal rendered under the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, relegating the petitioner to work out his remedies on a statutory appeal under Rule 27B of KS & SSR.
3. The fundamental plea of the petitioner is that the seniority position which stood settled long ago has been upset even without notice to him and his batch-mates.
4. While it may be true that a ground of denial of natural justice could form the reason for interference by entertaining an original petition without insisting on exhausting the statutory O.P.(KAT) No.1739 of 2013 2 remedies, the learned Tribunal, after making specific reference to Rule 27B of KS & SSR, reads Section 20(1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act to note that the Tribunal shall not ordinarily admit an application unless it is satisfied that the applicant had availed of all the remedies available to him under the relevant service rules as to redressal of grievances. The question whether it was a case to be treated as "ordinary" or "extra ordinary", to exercise the discretion as to admission of a matter is with the Administrative Tribunal. That has to be exercised as a judicial discretion following settled principles. In the impugned Ext.P1, the learned Tribunal has given reasons as to why it has decided to refuse admission of the original application and preserve the right of the petitioner to seek statutory remedy before the Government under Rule 27B of KS & SSR.
5. Though the petitioner's learned counsel points out the likelihood of consequential reversion on the basis of the impugned seniority list, we note that the Tribunal has dealt with that issue also in paragraph 3 of Ext.P1, to say that the power to O.P.(KAT) No.1739 of 2013 3 set aside an order of the lower authority includes the power to grant an interim order while entertaining the appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal has fairly envisaged that the petitioner while moving the Government under Rule 27B of KS & SSR can also seek immediate interlocutory orders, even interim in nature.
6. We record the submission of the learned Government Pleader that if appropriate application or appeal is filed under Rule 27B of KS & SSR with appropriate application for interim relief, those matters would be considered expeditiously. We direct that any request for interim relief in connection with such appeal shall be dealt with by the competent authority and appropriate orders shall be issued, without fail, within a fortnight on receipt of such application.
7. It shall be ensured that least inconvenience is caused in the event of any delay being caused in the final disposal of the appeal under Rule 27B of KS & SSR. It shall also be ensured that all persons who will be heard shall be extended appropriate hearing, also noticing that the petitioner has the case that he and O.P.(KAT) No.1739 of 2013 4 his batch-mates have not been heard.
With the aforesaid, we affirm the decision of the Tribunal and dismiss the original petition, leaving the petitioner to seek remedies as noted above and in Ext.P1.
(THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) sd/-
(BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE) AMV/22/5/