Prashant C.M S/O Marthanda Pillai Vs. Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices Trivandrum North Sub Division Thiruvananthapuram and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/938139
CourtCentral Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Decided OnJan-21-2010
Case NumberRA No. 56 of 2009 in O.A. NO. 417 of 2009
JudgeHONOURABLE MR. GEORGE PARACKEN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & HONOURABLE MRS. K. NOORJEHAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
AppellantPrashant C.M S/O Marthanda Pillai
RespondentAssistant Superintendent of Post Offices Trivandrum North Sub Division Thiruvananthapuram and Others
Advocates:For the Applicant: MR. T.C. Govindaswamy, Advocate. For the Respondent: - MR. Sunil Jacob Jose, SCGSC.
Excerpt:
hon'ble mrs. k. noorjehan, administrative member the applicant in o.a no. 417/2009 has filed this application for review of the order of the tribunal dated 26.11.09, on the grounds that registration of his name with the employment exchange is sufficient for fulfillment of the order dated 6.6.1988, the finding that the applicant had put in 240 days of service in an year on the basis of interim order of the tribunal and that the finding of the tribunal as recorded in the last portion of para 8 of the order are factually incorrect, hence there are errors apparent on the face of the records warranting review of the order. 2 we have gone through the pleadings and perused the documents carefully. the first ground raised in the r.a is that there is factual error in the order of the tribunal regarding sponsorship by employment exchange. the applicant reiterates that mere registration of his name with the employment exchange is sufficient to fulfill the provisions of the dg post's order dated 6.6.1988. we noticed that mere registration with the employment exchange alone would not be sufficient to make a candidate eligible to participate in the selection. on request from the department, the employment exchange has to sponsor candidates who possess the minimum qualifications prescribed. this is made clear in the last line of para 4 of dg post's letter no. 17- 141/88-edcandtrs dated 6.6.1988 which is extracted in the order of the tribunal. 3 the second ground raised is against the observation of the tribunal in the order that he has put in 240 days of casual service by virtue of the tribunals order. when the request of the applicant who was continuing as casual labourer w.e.f. 19.7.2004 for regular appointment was rejected, he filed o.a. 656/04 before the tribunal which permitted the applicant to continue on daily wage basis until regular appointment is effected. the department thereafter continued the applicant in service. that being so, there is no factual error in the order as pointed out by the applicant. 4 the last ground raised by the applicant pertains to reservation of obc candidates in the extra departmental cadres. the contention of the applicant was examined on the basis of the averments in the reply statement and in the light of dg post's letter no. 17-132/94ed andtg dated 5.10.94, the relevant portion of which was extracted in the judgment. 5 in this view of the matter, we do not find any patent error apparent on the face of the records warranting review of the order of the tribunal in the o.a as contended by the review applicant. accordingly we do not find any merit in the r.a., it is dismissed. no costs.
Judgment:

HON'BLE MRS. K. NOORJEHAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

The applicant in O.A No. 417/2009 has filed this Application for review of the order of the Tribunal dated 26.11.09, on the grounds that registration of his name with the Employment Exchange is sufficient for fulfillment of the order dated 6.6.1988, the finding that the applicant had put in 240 days of service in an year on the basis of interim order of the Tribunal and that the finding of the Tribunal as recorded in the last portion of para 8 of the order are factually incorrect, hence there are errors apparent on the face of the records warranting review of the order.

2 We have gone through the pleadings and perused the documents carefully. The first ground raised in the R.A is that there is factual error in the order of the Tribunal regarding sponsorship by Employment Exchange. The applicant reiterates that mere registration of his name with the Employment Exchange is sufficient to fulfill the Provisions of the DG Post's order dated 6.6.1988. We noticed that mere registration with the Employment Exchange alone would not be sufficient to make a candidate eligible to participate in the selection. On request from the Department, the Employment Exchange has to sponsor candidates who possess the minimum qualifications prescribed. This is made clear in the last line of para 4 of DG Post's letter No. 17- 141/88-EDCandTRS dated 6.6.1988 which is extracted in the order of the Tribunal.

3 The second ground raised is against the observation of the Tribunal in the order that he has put in 240 days of casual service by virtue of the Tribunals order. When the request of the applicant who was continuing as Casual Labourer w.e.f. 19.7.2004 for regular appointment was rejected, he filed O.A. 656/04 before the Tribunal which permitted the applicant to continue on daily wage basis until regular appointment is effected. The Department thereafter continued the applicant in service. That being so, there is no factual error in the order as pointed out by the applicant.

4 The last ground raised by the applicant pertains to reservation of OBC candidates in the Extra Departmental cadres. The contention of the applicant was examined on the basis of the averments in the reply statement and in the light of DG Post's letter No. 17-132/94ED andTG dated 5.10.94, the relevant portion of which was extracted in the judgment.

5 In this view of the matter, we do not find any patent error apparent on the face of the records warranting review of the order of the Tribunal in the O.A as contended by the review applicant. Accordingly we do not find any merit in the R.A., it is dismissed. No costs.