Gireesh Babu M.B. and Others v. State of Kerala and Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2013/29TH JYAISHTA 1935 OP(KAT).No. 1286 of 2013 (Z) ---------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN T.A.No. 3560/2012 of KERALA ADMINISTRATIVETRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) ## PETITIONERS/NON PARTIES: ------------------------------------------- 1. GIREESH BABU M.B, AGED 40 YEARS WATCH MAN, INDUSTRIAL TRAINING INSTITUTE H.M.T. COLONY P.O., KALAMASSERRY-683 503. 2. GIREESHAN P.K., WATCH MAN, INDUSTRIAL TRAINING INSTITUTE H.M.T. COLONY P.O., KALAMASSERRY-683 503. 3. MANOJ S.S., WATCH MAN, INDUSTRIAL TRAINING INSTITUTE H.M.T. COLONY P.O., KALAMASSERRY-683 503. 4. ANOOJ S.S., WATCH MAN, K.M.M. GOVERNMENT ITI KALPATTA MANIYANCODE P.O, WAYANAD. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ ## RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3: - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. PAVITHRAN T.T.V PEON, GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRAINING INSTITUTE, MADAYI PAZHAYANGAD (R.S) P.O, KANNUR-670 358. 2. MINIMOL P.S., PEON, GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRAINING INSTITUTE KALAMASSERRY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. SREENITH C, PEON, GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRAINING INSTITUTE P.O.THOTTADA, KANNUR-670 007. 4. BINDHUMOL C, PEON GOVERNMENT NDUSTRIAL TRAINING INSTITUTE FOR WOMEN KOLLAM-12. 5. VINURAJ K.L. WATCHMAN, GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRAINING INSTITUTE, ATTINGAL-695 101, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. 6. SANTHOSH PUKKOOTH, PEON, GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRAINING INSTITUTE, OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-679522. 7. RATHEESH R., WATCHMAN, RELATED INSTRUCTION CENTRE, SHANDANATHOPE, KOLLAM-14. 8. ANOOP PHILIP. M, WATCHMAN, GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRAINING INSTITUTE(W), MEZHUVELI, ELAVUMTHITTA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689 625 9. SUMESH R., PEON, GOVOERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRAINING INSTITUTE, P.O.THOTTADA, KANNUR-6700007. 10. ASHRAF ELAHIKKAL, PEON, GOVERNMENT INDUSTSRIAL TRAINING INSTITUTE, PULLUR, UDMA, KASARGOD -671531. 11. ANU U, WATCHMAN, GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRAINING INSTITUTE, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. 12. ADHARSH T.V., WATCHMAN, GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRAINING INSTITUTE, ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM-6876631. 13. THE DIRECTOR OF TRAINING, DIRECTORATE OF INDUSTRIAL TRAINING, THYCAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014. 14. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, O/O.DIRECTEOR OF TRAINING, DIRECTORATE OF INDUSTRIAL TRAINING, THYCAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 014. 15. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. R1,R2,R4-R7 & R9-R12 BY ADV. SMT.P.V.ASHA BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI. NOBLE MATHEW. THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-06-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(KAT).No. 1286 of 2013 (Z) ----------------------------- ## APPENDIX ## PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.11.2012 IN T.A.3560/2012 (WPC NO.31892/2011) EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF WPC NO.31892/2011 TOGETHER WITH EXHIBITS. EXHIBIT P2(1): TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA CRAFTSMAN TRAINING SUBORDINATE SERVICE SPECIAL RULES, 1971. EXHIBIT P2(2): TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.6.208 IN WPC NO,16255/2008. EXHIBIT P2(3): TRUE COPY OF THE CIRUCLAR DATED 11.7.2003 ISSUED BY THE PSC. EXHIBIT P2(4): TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7.10.2004 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2(5): TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 29.4.2006 GIVEN BY THE INDUSTRIAL TRANINING DEPARTMENT. EXHIBIT P2(6): TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 2.7.2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION DATED 14.11.2012 TOGETHER WITH ANNEXURES. ANNEXURE A1 IN TA :TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19.9.2012 OF JOINT DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION. ANNEXURE A2 IN TA: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A6/18123/06 DATED 29.3.2010 ISSUED BY THE SENIOR JOINT DIRECTOR ENGLISH TRANSLATION. ANNEXURE A2(a) IN TA: TRUE COPY FOTHE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P3(b). RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS --------------------------------------- 'NIL' // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE. ## **C.R.** ## **THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JJ.** -----------------------------------------------------------O.P.(KAT) No. 1286 of 2013 ------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 19[th] day of June, 2013 ## **JUDGMENT** ## Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan,J. The petitioners claim that they are holders of National Trade Certificate or National Apprentice-ship Certificate in the concerned trade for being considered for appointment to the category of Workshop Attender in terms of the Special Rules for the Kerala Craftsmen Training Subordinate Service. They claim that respondents 1 to 12 do not possess such qualification; yet they have got an order from the Kerala Administrative Tribunal on the basis that Diploma in the concerned branch of Engineering with reference to the relevant trade is equivalent to the aforesaid trade certificate or apprentice-ship certificate. Petitioners say that they are aggrieved by it. They have, therefore, invoked Article 227 of the Constitution challenging 2 [O.P.(KAT).1286/2013] Ext.P1 order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal issued under the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners made earnest attempt to point out that **Jyoti's** case ( **K.K.Jyothi** v. **Kerala Public Service Commission** (JT 2002 Suppl. 1 SC 85) relied on by the Tribunal is not decisive and the relevant field of judge made law is occupied by different other precedents laid down by the Division Bench of this Court and also some other judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court of India. 3. This Court, however, even at the stage of consideration of this case for admission, had minuted an order indicating that the effect of the pronouncement of the Honourable Supreme Court of India in **Rajeev Kumar and another** v. **Hemraj Singh Chauhan** [(2010) 4 SCC 554)] needs to be considered. Hence, notice was issued before admission. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the private respondents. 5. Faced with the discussions in paragraphs 7 to 14 of **Rajeev Kumar** _(supra)_ and the pointed conclusions arrived at 3 [O.P.(KAT).1286/2013] in paragraph 11 of that judgment, on the basis of the ratio of **L.Chandra Kumar** v. **Union of India** [(1997) 3 SCC 261], the learned counsel for the petitioners attempted to distinguish **Rajeev Kumar** by saying that while in that case, the employees – Rajeev Kumar and another, had applied for impleadment in a petition pending before the High Court against the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, while the petitioners herein have come directly to this Court invoking Article 227 of the Constitution. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners thus tried to draw a distinction between original petitioners and impleading petitioners, we do not see any room for classification of the parties on that basis. We say this because, in **Rajeev Kumar** , the categoric statement of the Apex Court is that “the approach made to the High Court for the first time by these appellants in respect of their service disputes over which CAT has jurisdiction, is not legally sustainable.” It was also held that the Division Bench of the High Court fell into an error by allowing to treat the High Court as a court of first instance in respect of their service 4 [O.P.(KAT).1286/2013] disputes for adjudication for which CAT has been constituted. In **Rajeev Kumar** , the Apex Court had pointed out that in view of the clear law laid by the Constitution Bench in **L.Chandra Kumar** _(supra)_ , the approach of the High Court treating itself as the court of first instance overlooking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal was unacceptable. Those principles apply on all fours to matters arising from decisions of all Tribunals constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, including the Kerala Administrative Tribunal. 6. Incidentally, the Apex Court had also noted in **Rajeev Kumar** that the Tribunal has also the power of review. We do not see that expression, as excluding any other mode available before the Tribunal, for grant of relief, to persons who were entitled to be heard, if found so; yet, not heard before the verdict was handed down by it. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners also made reference to **Shama Prashant Raje** v. **Ganpatrao** [(2000) 7 SCC 522)] to argue that notwithstanding that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 is supervisory and 5 [O.P.(KAT).1286/2013] not appellate; if perusal of the order of an inferior tribunal leads to the conclusion that one among the four conditions enumerated in that precedent exists, the High Court would be fully justified in interfering with the findings of the inferior tribunal. We see that such law was laid in consonance with the existing precedent law and that was applied to decisions arising under the rent control laws. The principles laid down by the Constitution Bench in **L. Chandra Kumar** were not adverted to while deciding **Shama Prashant Raje** _(supra_ ), which dealt with a different jurisdictional zone. **L. Chandra Kumar** was pointedly adverted to, considered and applied by the Apex Court while deciding **Rajeev Kumar.** We are, therefore, of the view that **Rajeev Kumar** directly applies as the precedent to the case in hand while the ratio in **Shama Prashant Raje** does not apply to the context in hand. For the aforesaid reasons, we refuse to examine the merits or demerits of the contentions raised in this petition as against the impugned order of the Tribunal and leave the petitioners to seek remedies, as otherwise available in 6 [O.P.(KAT).1286/2013] accordance with law. This original petition is accordingly dismissed without expressing anything on the merits of the claim of the petitioners. **THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN JUDGE** **BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH JUDGE** krs.