MINI K.P. Vs. A.M.NANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This original petition has been filed challenging an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing R.A.No.54/2018 as per order dated 5.07.2019. In fact, the petitioner had filed a contempt petition as C.P.(C).No.26/2018 which came to be dismissed on 15.11.2018. Alleging that there are errors apparent on the face of record R.A. No.54/2018 was filed. The petitioner challenges both the orders. The contention urged by the petitioner was that by Annexure A8 order dated 11.11.2011, the Tribunal issued a direction to consider all the cases of part time or full time casual labourers in the Sub Division concerned for selection to the post of GDSBPM, Porkulam and it was further pointed out that if the applicant happens to be meritorious out of them, he may be given the appointment as GDSBPM. The aforesaid order was challenged before the High Court and by Annexure A9 order dated 20.3.2012, the said order was stayed. Subsequently, the High Court confirmed the Annexure A8 order. It is seen that after conducting selection, the respondents appointed one Lakshmi M.T to the aforesaid post.

(2.) Alleging that there is willful disobedience of the directions issued by this Court, a contempt case was filed. Initially, the Tribunal by order dated 21.6.2018 found that prima facie there is contumacious contempt on the part of the respondents and accordingly notice was issued to the respondents in the contempt petition under Rule 8 of the Contempt of Courts (Central Administrative Tribunal) Rules, 1992 and the respondents were directed to appear. Pursuant to the aforesaid notice, parties appeared and after hearing both the parties, the Tribunal by its order dated 15.11.2018 dismissed the contempt petition. Paragraphs 6 to 9 of the said order reads as under:

(3.) Before the contempt court, the contention of the petitioner was that Smt.Lakshmi M.T who took up the post of GDS BPM at Karikkad Sub Post Office in the vacancy caused due to officiating arrangement, should not have been considered for the said post. The Tribunal did not agree with the said contention as the direction was to consider all part time and full time labourers for the said post. The above order was challenged by filing a review inter alia contending that there was error apparent on the face of record which was finally disposed of by Ext.P19 dated 14.12.2018 allowing the review application. The above order came to be challenged before this Court in O.P.(CAT)No.34/2019. This Court by judgment dated 29.3.2019 observed that the order allowing review application was without any reason and therefore the matter was remitted back for fresh consideration. This resulted in Ext.P22 order dated 5.7.2019.