Kerala High Court
The Administrator, Union ... vs Subaidabi C. P on 7 April, 2022
OP (CAT) No.18/2022 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
Thursday, the 7th day of April 2022 / 17th Chaithra, 1944
OP (CAT) NO. 18 OF 2022
(AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10.11.2021 IN O.A NO.224/2020 OF THE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH)
PETITIONERS/ RESPONDENTS IN THE O.A;-
1. THE ADMINISTRATOR, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP,
KAVARATTI - 682555.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,UNION TERRITORY OF
LAKSHADWEEP,KAVARATTI-682555.
THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, LAKSHADWEEP DISTRICT
3.
PANCHAYATH (EDUCATION), KAVARATTI - 682555
RESPONDENT/APPLICANT IN O.A:-
SUBAIDABI C. P, AGED 49 YEARS, D/O LATE
SHRI.C.G.CHERIYAKOYA, PRINCIPAL (AD-HOC), DISTRICT
INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING, KAVARATTI -
682555, RESIDENT OF GOVERNMENT QUARTER NO. D22, NEAR
IRBN CAMP, KAVARATTI - 682555
OP(CAT) praying inter alia that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed along with the OP (CAT) the
High Court be pleased to stay the operation of Exhibit P4
order.
This petition coming on for admission on 07-04-2022,
upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in
support of OP (CAT) and upon hearing the arguments of
Sri. V.SAJITH KUMAR SC, LAKSHADWEEP ADMINISTRATION, for
the petitioners and of Sri.T.C.GOVINDASWAMI, Advocate for
the respondent, the court passed the following:
OP (CAT) No.18/2022 2/5
ALEXANDER THOMAS & VIJU ABRAHAM, JJ.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
O.P.(CAT) No.18 of 2022
[arising out of order dated 10.11.2021 in O.A. No.224/2020 on the file of the CAT, Ekm Bench]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 07th day of April, 2022
ORDER
Admit O.P.(CAT).
2. Sri.T.C. Govindaswami, learned Advocate, has taken notice
for the sole respondent herein/applicant in O.A.
3. The Registry will show the name of the abovesaid learned
Advocate in the cause list. Service complete.
4. It is urged by Sri.V. Sajithkumar, learned Standing counsel
for the Lakshadweep Administration, that the reliance placed on in para
No.9 of the impugned Ext.P4 verdict on the decision of the Apex Court
in Abraham Jacob & Ors. v. Union of India [(1998) 4 SCC 65] is
inapt and misplaced inasmuch as in that case Adhoc promotions were
actually regularised by the Union of India and the Apex Court has only
approved the conscious decision taken by the Government department,
whereas in the matter in issue in the present case, the department has
decided to frame new Rules and the process is ongoing. That, pending
OP (CAT) No.18/2022 3/5
that process it was decided to terminate the temporary services of the
original applicants, etc.
5. The said plea is strongly opposed by Sri.T.C.Govindswami,
learned Advocate appearing for the sole respondent herein.
6. After hearing both sides, prima-facie, we feel that the view
taken by the Tribunal that since the Administration had consciously
decided to appoint the original applicants on the basis of the Draft
Recruitment Rule, and they have been continuing for more than 11
long years, their abrupt termination from service appears to be rather
arbitrary and unwarranted.
7. The Administration does not have any case that the new
Rules have been framed and that new selectees on the basis of new
Rules will have to be immediately replace the present original
applicants.
8. To that extent, we feel, that the abovesaid views of the
Tribunal may not require any interdiction. However, the direction
given by the Tribunal to regularise the services of the original
applicants by placing reliance on the dictum laid down by the Apex
Court in Abraham Jacob's case (supra) (judgment dated 11.02.1998
in Civil Appeal Nos.12387 & 12388 of 1996) would require a detailed
examination.
OP (CAT) No.18/2022 4/5
9. Hence, it is ordered in the interest of justice that the
operation and enforcement of the impugned Ext.P4 final verdict of the
Tribunal rendered on 10.11.2021, in the instant O.A. No.224/2020 will
remain stayed, to the limited extent it directs the regularisation of
services of the original applicants on the basis of the dictum laid down
by the Apex Court in Abraham Jacob's case (supra). However, it is
made clear that the findings made by the Tribunal regarding
continuance of the original applicants, on the basis of their
appointments made by the Administration in pursuance of the Draft
Recruitment Rules, need not be disturbed now. In other words, only
the direction to regularise the service will be stayed and the the
petitioners herein shall not terminate the services of the respondent
herein/original applicant.
List this case on 29.06.2022.
Hand Over a copy of this order to both sides.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS,
JUDGE
Sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM,
JUDGE
Skk//08042022
07-04-2022 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
OP (CAT) No.18/2022 5/5
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.11.2021
IN O.A. NO. 224/2020 OF THE HON'BLE CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH
