JUDGMENT

A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.

This Original Petition (CAT) is preferred by the Union of India, aggrieved by an interim order dated 27.05.2022 in MA Nos.381 of 2022 and 382 of 2022 in O.A.No.180/00648/2021 pending before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Ernakulam Bench. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the OP(CAT) are that the applicants before the Tribunal had approached the said forum with a prayer for allowing them to provisionally participate in a selection process in pursuance to Annexure A5 notification, the legality of which was the subject matter of the original application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal while considering the prayer for interim relief took note of the contention of the petitioners herein, that the post for which the applicants before the Tribunal were seeking promotion was no longer the same as the one for which they were eligible as per the earlier recruitment rule and that the level of the post itself had changed. The said contention of the petitioners herein had not been made earlier before the Tribunal and could be considered in detail at the time of final hearing, the Tribunal was of the view that the balance of convenience lay in permitting the applicants before it to write the LDC on the date and time fixed for the same. An interim direction was therefore issued to the petitioners herein to accept the manual application submitted by the applicants and to permit them to participate in the examination and further to keep the results in a sealed cover and produce it before the Tribunal as and when directed. The petitioners herein were also directed to file a detailed reply statement on or before the next date of posting of the O.A on 21.06.2022, i.e., today.

2. In the OP(CAT) filed before us the contention raised by the petitioners is essentially that the interim order of the Tribunal was passed without considering the objections raised by them in the proper perspective and without taking note of the clarifications issued by the Department of Posts and Telegraph (DoP&T) as regards the scope and ambit of the protection clauses in respect of quantifying service that was the subject matter of the O.A. Various other contentions on the merits of the O.A. before the Tribunal have also been urged in the OP(CAT). The apprehension of the petitioners herein appears to be that a sustaining of the interim order of the Tribunal would result in opening the floodgates of litigation from others who have completed the five years of regular service in the feeder category and hence the interim direction would have all India ramifications.

2. We have heard Sri.K.R.Rajkumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. Rekha Vasudevan, the learned counsel for the respondents.

3. On consideration of the rival submissions, we find that this OP(CAT) has been preferred against an interim order of the Tribunal which does not seriously prejudice the petitioners in any significant way. The Tribunal took note of the balance of convenience and directed the petitioners herein to provisionally permit the applicants before it to appear at the LDC on the date and time fixed for the same. The contention of the petitioners in O.A. have not been foreclosed by the directions issued by the Tribunal. It is certainly open to the petitioners to urge the issues raised in this OP(CAT) before the Tribunal in the O.A., that is pending before that forum. Further the fact that the last date for applying for the post in question was 31.05.2022, would suggest that the apprehension of the petitioner regarding increased litigation on this score is unfounded.

4. The upshot of the above discussion is that we see no reason to interfere with the impugned interim order of the CAT. We therefore, dismiss the OP(CAT) and relegate the petitioners to the remedy of either seeking a modification of the interim order or an early hearing before the Tribunal, if so advised.

The OP(CAT) is accordingly dismissed Sd/-

A.K.JAYASANKARAN