ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
The challenge in this Original Petition is raised by some of the applicants in O.A.No.2412 of 2012, who are aggrieved by the order dated 29th May, 2014 passed by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal dismissing the said Original Application.
2. In the said order the Tribunal examined 2 issues.
One was regarding the cadre strength of the Upper Division Clerks in the undivided Public Works Department and the other one related to the date of acquisition of qualification.
3. Insofar as the issue of cadre strength of Upper Division Clerks is concerned, while the petitioner contended that in the undivided Public Works Department the cadre strength was 1863, the Tribunal accepted the case of the respondent it was only 1791. On the 2nd issue relating to the O.P.(KAT).No.359 of 2014 2 date of acquisition of qualification, this was directed to be re- examined by the Government. In this Original Petition the challenge is against the finding of the Tribunal on the cadre strength of U.D. Clerk.
4. In the impugned order the Tribunal upheld the case of the Government by holding thus:-
Government as 1791 is attacked by the applicants saying that there is no specific determination of cadre strength. Therefore, the same is unreliable. We think, in these matters, the stand of the employer should be respected unless there are compelling materials to show that the said stand is untenable. The Government need not every time pass orders determining the cadre strength because presumably the Government knows what is the cadre strength. There is no reason or interest for the Government to make false claim in that regard. So, we are not inclined to disturb the stand of the Government that the cadre strength of the Upper Division Clerks in the un-divided Public Works Department was only 1781.”
O.P.(KAT).No.359 of 2014 3
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Tribunal has presumed the case pleaded by the Government to be correct and according to him there were no reason to presume correctness of the case pleaded by the respondents.
6. We agree that the Tribunal is bound to examine pleadings of the respective parties and come to its own conclusion. The question of accepting the plea of the petitioner arises only when that the cadre strength was 1863, is substantiated with acceptable materials. In our view, apart from the averments that the cadre strength was 1863, the petitioner has failed to satisfy the Tribunal with materials that the cadre strength was 1863 as contended by them. It was in such circumstances that the Tribunal gave a quietus to the issue, rejecting the case pleaded by the petitioner and accepting the case pleaded by the respondents. Such conclusion of the Tribunal in our view was fully justified in the light of the facts pleaded and the materials that were available before it.
O.P.(KAT).No.359 of 2014 4
7. In such circumstances, we are unable to differ from the findings of the Tribunal on the cadre strength of the Upper Division Clerks in the undivided PWD.
The O.P.(KAT) is dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE skj ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE