JUDGMENT

Alexander Thomas, J.

The petitioner herein has instituted the instant Ext.P1 Original Application, O.A.No.117 of 2020 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench with the following prayers:

“I) Call for the records leading to the issuance of Annexure A3, A11 and A13 and quash the same.

II) Declare that Annexure A3 in so far as it enable filling up the post of Deputy Director by considering the persons in the lower grade of Senior Instructor with 5 years experience is arbitrary,discriminatory, unreasonable and opposed to the equality clause enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

III) Declare that the respondents are bound to consider filling up the vacancy of Deputy Director by promotion from Chief Instructors/Mechanical Marine Engineer (by upgrading these posts as Joint Directors along with rising of Pay Scale from Pay Matrix level-11 to Level-12)

Or by Transfer on Seniority of Chief Instructors to Deputy Director Posts Or by Re-designating the post of Chief Instructors/Mechanical Marine Engineer as Deputy Director with their respective branch suffix (i.e. Marine Engineer/Fishing Technology/Seamanship & Navigation/Mechanical Marine Engineer) and declare the senior most among Deputy Directors as Head of Office and direct the respondents accordingly.

IV) Award costs of and incidental to this application.

V) Grant such other relief, which this Honourable Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

2. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench after hearing both sides has rendered the impugned Ext.P6 final order dated 02.02.2021, dismissing the said O.A.No.117 of 2020 on the ground that even going by the averments in the O.A., no part of cause of action for striking down Annexure-A3 statutory rules, Annexure-A11 selection notification and Annexure-A13 Government letter is made out in the instant case and therefore the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench has no territorial jurisdiction, to entertain the O.A. going by the mandatory provisions contained in Rule 6 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, and that in case the applicant has any legally justiciable grievances, it is for him to approach the competent Tribunal having territorial jurisdiction, like the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in as much as the petitioner/applicant herein is now posted in Chennai.

3. It is this final verdict of the Tribunal at Ext.P6 dismissing the O.A. on the abovesaid ground that is under challenge in the instant Original Petition filed at the behest of the unsuccessful original applicant, under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.

4. The prayer in the instant Original Petition is as follows:

“........... to set aside Ext.P1 – Order dated 14.02.2020 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench in OA No.180/00117/2020 and allow Exhibit P1 Original Application filed by the petitioner."

5. Heard Sri.T.A.Rajan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the O.P/applicant in the O.A., Sri.S.Manu, the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for R1, R2 & R4 and Sri.Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil, the learned Standing Counsel for the UPSC, appearing for R3.

6. The prayer in the instant Original Application is for striking down Annexure-A3 statutory rules, to the extent it provides that the post of Deputy Director which is a central service Group A gazetted post (non ministerial) in pay band, PB-3, Rs.15,600- 39,100/- + grade pay of Rs.6,600/- is to be filled up on the basis of deputation including short term contract from amongst eligible officers of Central Government/State Government/UTAs/ Universities/PSUS/recognized research institutions/semi Governmental/statutory or autonomous organizations for holding analogous post on a regular basis in the parent cadre/department or with five years' service in the grade rendered after appointment thereto on a regular basis in the post on a pay band - 3(Rs.15,600- 39,100/-)+ grade pay of Rs.5,400/- or equi