Full Judgment
K.G. Balakrishnan, J.
1. This is an Original Petition filed by the Union Public Service Commission challenging Ext. P4 order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench dated June 11, 1997. The first respondent herein filed O. A. No. 611 of 1996. He is an Engineer and Ship Survey or working in the Mercantile Marine Department. He was transferred to Madras Office. He challenged the transfer order and prayed before the Tribunal that the order may be quashed. In the original application, the present appellant was made as the third respondent and he inter alia prayed that the third respondent may be directed to publish the results of the selection held on September 13, 1995 for the post of Engineer and Ship Surveyor. The appellant herein received notice in the original application and filed a detailed reply statement, wherein it was contended that the original application filed by the first respondent was not maintainable and that the appellant was not in a position to declare the results of the unreserved posts. It was a contended that the results of the selection conducted on September 13, 1995 was already published but in view of the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, the result of one seat was withheld.
2. The first respondent prayed that the appellant herein may be directed to furnish the results of the Selection held on September 13, 1995 and the following order was passed by the Tribunal.
'As per order dated April 15, 1997, this Tribunal directed the respondents to inform whether the results have since been published and if not, when they will publish it and also the reasons for the delay in publishing the results. In the reply statement filed by the third respondent dated January 22, 1997 it is stated that the results of the selection conducted on September 13, 1995 have been published leaving one result which has been withheld because of the case before the Calcutta Bench of this Tribunal. Since it is now admitted that the results have been published of the selection conducted on September 13, 1995, the third respondent shall produce before this Tribunal the results of the selection, on or before June 18, 1997. Only one week's time is granted, though the learned counsel for respondents prayed for one month's time, since the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the last date for submission of application for the next selection is July 10, 1997 and if the applicant has not come out successful in the selection held on September 13, 1995 he has to apply again right on time.
Call on June 18, 1997.'
The above order is challenged before us under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
3. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The Counsel for the appellant contended that in the original application filed by the first respondent, there were more than one relief in the sense that the first respondent wanted to set aside the order of transfer passed against him and also called for the records relating to his selection as Engineer and Ship Surveyor held on September 13, 1995. According to the appellant, the second relief claimed against the appellant herein should not have been included in the original petition filed by the first respondent as it would amount to plurality of remedies which is prohibited under the Rules relating to Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1985. The Counsel relied onRule 10 of the C.A.T. Rules which is to the following effect:
'An applicant shall not seek relief or reliefs based on more than a single cause of action in one single application unless the reliefs prayed for are consequential to one another'.
The counsel vehemently contended before us that the direction to the appellant to produce the result of the selection held on September 13, 1995 is a relief claimed against the appellant. It is argued that the Tribunal was not proper in considering that relief as it was against the reliefs. We are unable to accept the contention of the appellant's counsel. The first respondent wanted to know about the results of the selection held on September 13, 1995 as he evidently thought that it would give him a permanent absorption in the department as Engineer and Ship Surveyor.
4. The counsel for the appellant further contended that by the impugned order the appellant has been directed to produce the result before the Tribunal and the Tribunal was not justified in passing that order. By the impugned order the appellant has been directed to inform the Tribunal whether the first respondent herein came out successful in the selection held on September 13, 1995. The appellant could have divulged necessary information to the Tribunal. By the impugned order the appellant is not put to any hardship or inconvenience. If there is any other order of prohibition issued by other Courts or Tribunals in publishing the results, that also could have been brought to the notice of the Tribunal. We are of the view that the Tribunal has passed the impugned order in exercise of their ordinary jurisdiction.
The Original Petition is disposed of as above.