IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 29.06.2017 CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI W.P.No.14817 of 2017 and WMP No.16059 of 2017
1. Union of India rep.by Chief Post Master General Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.
2. The General Manager Department of Posts Tamil Nadu Circle Egmore, Chennai - 600 008. ...Petitioners vs.
1. Leo Prakash
2. The Central Administrative Tribunal Rep.by its Registrar Madras Bench Chennai - 600 104. ..Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorari calling for the records of second respondent and quash the order dated 01.08.2016 in O.A.No.310/01209/2016 as the same is unsustainable.
For Petitioners : Mr.V.P.Sengottuvel (SCGSC) For Respondents : Mr.R.Rajesh Vivekananthan for R1 R2 - Tribunal
O R D E R
K.K. SASIDHARAN,J.
This writ petition is directed against the order dated 01 August 2016 in O.A.No.310/01209/2016, whereby and whereunder, the Madras Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal directed the petitioners to consider the candidature of the first respondent for compassionate appointment by placing it before the Circle Relaxation Committee and communicate the result by a speaking order.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that without giving reasonable opportunity to file reply statement, the Tribunal passed the impugned order. According to the learned counsel, the Tribunal has not quashed the order impugned in the Original Application and as such, the order under challenge is liable to be quashed.
3. We have also heard the learned counsel for the first respondent.
4. The first respondent challenged the order dated 21 June 2016 before the Tribunal in O.A.No.310/01209/2016. The Tribunal was expected to consider the legality and correctness of the said order before directing the Department to consider the matter afresh. In the subject case, the Tribunal, without quashing the impugned order dated 21 June 2016, directed the petitioners to consider the case of the first respondent for compassionate appointment. Such a course is not permissible in view of the jurisdiction exercised by the Tribunal. The Tribunal ought to have given reasonable opportunity to the petitioners to file reply statement. The Tribunal was also expected to decide as to whether the petitioners were correct in rejecting the request made by the first respondent for compassionate appointment. Since such a course was not adopted by the Tribunal, we are inclined to set aside the order.
5. In the result, the order dated 01 August 2016 is set aside.
The application in O.A.No.310/01209/2016 is restored to file. The K.K.SASIDHARAN,J.
and M.DHANDAPANI,J.
dna petitioners are given three weeks time to file reply statement. The Central Administrative Tribunal is requested to dispose of the Original Application as expeditiously as possible and in any case, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
dna/gms (K.K.SASIDHARAN.,J.) (M.DHANDAPANI.,J.) 29 June 2017 To The Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal Madras Bench Chennai - 600 104.
W.P.No.14817 of 2017