K.V.Muraleedharan Vs. the State of Kerala - Court Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAYOF JULY 2013 28TH ASHADHA, 1935 OP(KAT).No. 4172 of 2012 (Z) ----------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- K.V.MURALEEDHARAN, DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND REFORMS APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THRISSUR, RESIDING AT 'POORNASREE', MANNUTHY.P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ”

001.

2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ”

001.

3. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND CIVIL SERVICES, NEW DELHI-110 001.

4. UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SHAHJAHAN ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 001. R1 & R2 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.NOBLE MATHEW R3 BY SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA R4 BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL,SC UPSC THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAYDELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss OP(KAT)NO.4172/2012 (Z) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF WPC.NO.27623/11 WHICH WAS RENUMBERED AS T.A.1980/2012. P2: COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DTD. 3/12/2011 IN WPC.NO.27623/2011. P3: COPY OF M.A.NO.1336/2012 IN T.A.1980/2012 DTD. 8/08/2012. P4: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 8/08/2012 IN M.A.NO.1336/12 IN T.A.NO.1980/12 OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TOJUDGE Kss THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JJ.

----------------------------------------------- O.P. (KAT) No. 4172 of 2012 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of July, 2013 JUDGMENT THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

The petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court and obtained an interlocutory order requiring the Union Public Service Commission to adopt 'sealed cover procedure' to consider him for promotion. The petitioner aspires to be conferred IAS. If that were so, the proceedings upto the stage of the State Government making the recommendation, are matters falling within the jurisdiction of the State Government. The decision to recommend or not, would also be subject to review only that way. Once the stage of making the recommendation is over, the subsequent decision making process and the decision of the UPSC or the Central Government as regards the conferment of IAS is a matter which will be in the domain of the UPSC and the Central Government. Judicial review of such matter will also be regulated accordingly. O.P.(KAT) No.4172 /12 -2- 2. It appears that the petitioner before us had filed a composite writ petition before this Court which took within it matters which, with the passage of time, fell within the domain of the Central Administrative Tribunal, as also matters which fell within the domain of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal.

3. The UPSC moved the KAT where the matter is now pending in the form of a transferred application, seeking that the afore-noted interlocutory order passed by the High Court be vacated. The Tribunal noted that after the transfer of the case to it, it did not have jurisdiction to issue any order of the nature of that interim order and accordingly vacated it.

4. One way of looking at it is, that, as submitted on behalf of the petitioner, if one did not have the jurisdiction to pass an order, it would not have the jurisdiction to vacate such an order. But at the same time, on a comprehensive consideration, we see that the pointed case of UPSC is that it does not go by any sealed cover procedure in relation to assessments. Under such circumstances, the direction issued by the learned single Judge O.P.(KAT) No.4172 /12 -3- on 3.12.2011 while the matter was pending in the form of a writ petition before this Court requiring the UPSC to follow 'sealed cover procedure' was quite unsustainable. In that view of the matter, though for different reasons, we affirm the decision of the Tribunal vacating the interim order dated 3.12.2011. We record the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal may consider expeditious disposal of the transferred application. That is a matter entirely left to the Tribunal on any request to be made by the applicant. The original petition is ordered accordingly. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN JUDGE Sd/- BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH JUDGE kvr/22-7 /True copy/ P.S. to Judge