D.L. Anil Kumar, V. Kumaraswamy and M.R. Ramesh vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.—The petitioners are employed with the Commissionerate of Central Excise. They say that while working in the ministerial cadre to which they stand re-deployed, they filed an earlier original application seeking certain reliefs and that the establishment had offered before the Tribunal that a policy decision would be taken as to whether there could a merger of the cadres and also whether the petitioners, Radio Operators, could be provided promotional avenues as they seek. The original application from which this writ petition arises was filed at a later point of time on the premise that the policy decision was yet to be taken. It appears that there were similar other cases also. In the original application, the applicants sought an interlocutory relief by filing miscellaneous application seeking a direction that they be also considered provisionally for the departmental examination for promotion to the post of Inspectors. It appears that the Tribunal had rejected such a relief to similarly situated persons by an earlier order. Quoting that, the Tribunal rejected the applicants'' claim.

The Tribunal states that it had tentatively concluded that the applicants are not within the field of choice and that the establishment has a case that the applicants have other promotional avenues. The Tribunal thought it fit to leave the parties to have a final verdict at the hands of the Tribunal. Though that order was issued on 18.1.2010, it appears that the parties have not sought for a final hearing of the matters still now.

Having looked into the reasons stated for the impugned Ext.P3 order, we do not find that there is any error of jurisdiction which warrants the interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, particularly in relation to an interlocutory order. We would, however, preserve the rights of the petitioners (applicants) to raise all their contentions at the final hearing of the original application. If they desire to have the final hearing of the original application expedited, they would take the offer of the Tribunal made even in the impugned order for such consideration. The learned standing counsel for the establishment states that a policy decision has already been taken and that it appears to be against the interest of the applicants. This writ petition is dismissed.