SHILPA G PATIL vs D/o Posts on 29 December 2023

1. Union of India, Represented by Secretary, Department of Post, Dak Bhavan, New Delhi - 110001.

2. The Post Master General,

North Karnataka Region,

Dharwad -580001.

3. The Chief Post Master General,

Karnataka Circle,

Bangalore -560001.

4. The Superintendent of Post Offices,

Vijayapura Division,

Vijayapura-586104.

...Respondents

(By Advocate, Shri Syed S.Kazi for Respondents)

O R D E R (ORAL) Per: Justice S.Sujatha ...........Member(J)

The applicant has filed this application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs: “1. Quash the superintendent of Post Offices, Vijayapura Dn, Vijayapura letter No.B-11/1/2-PM- 2019/2020 dated 31.05.2022 vide Annexure-A6;

2. Consequently direct the respondents to consider the applicant for post man cadre.

3. Grant any other relief as deemed fit into the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.”

2. Briefly stated the facts as narrated by the applicant are that the applicant is working as BPM at Honaganahalli BO at Vijayapura Postal Division. Pursuant to the notification dated 20.08.2019 issued by Respondent No.3 for conducting Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) from MTS/GDS officials for promotion to the cadre of Postman, the applicant being eligible, appeared for the competitive examination. The result of the said LDCE was declared on 20.04.2020. In selection panel three candidates from UR category and one candidate from SC category were selected. It is the contention of the applicant that one candidate Shri Vijayakumar S. Chubachi selected for Postman vacancy subsequently appeared for PA/SA examination held during 2020 and got selected. The said Shri Vijayakumar S. Chubachi was not promoted immediately as Postman though he was selected, as some punishment was current against him. Subsequent to his selection for PA/SA the Respondent No.4 asked his willingness regarding acceptance of PA/SA post after expiry of

punishment to which he expressed his willingness to work as PA/SA vide his letter dated 08.05.2021. Accordingly, the applicant submitted a representation on 25.03.2022 to Respondent No.4 requesting to consider her selection in place of the candidate selected as PA/SA as she has scored 76 marks in the LDCE held on 29.09.2019, as the candidate who had scored more marks than her and was above her in the merit list has opted for PA cadre. The said request has been rejected by Respondent No.4. Hence this OA.

3. Learned Counsel Shri P.Kamalesan representing the applicant submitted that the applicant secured 76 marks in LDCE held on 29.09.2019 for Postman cadre from MTS/GDS cadre. One Shri Vijayakumar S.Chubachi got selected as Postman by securing 80 marks was not promoted in view of currency of penalty imposed on him. Subsequent to selection in PS/SA cadre, he submitted his willingness to work as PA/SA after the penalty period, which resulted in the vacancy for Postman cadre in Vijayapura Division. The next candidate is the applicant, who secured 76 marks and eligible to be considered in the

vacancy caused. However, the Respondent No.4 arbitrarily rejected the request of the applicant.

4. Learned Counsel Shri Syed S.Kazi representing the respondents submitted that the results of the LDCE held on 29.09.2019 was declared vide Memo dated 20.04.2020 issued by Respondent No.3. Four GDS candidates were declared successful in the examination for the post of Postman against the vacancy for the year 2019. No order of promotion was issued to Shri Vijayakumar S. Chubachi, one of the selected candidate by Respondent No.4 due to punishment imposed on him in some disciplinary proceedings, which was current upto 31.12.2021. After expiry of the punishment period, he was promoted to the post of PA/SA cadre as he was declared successful as surplus qualified candidate in the examination held on 15.09.2019 for promotion to the cadre of PA/SA from GDS relating to the vacancy years 2015-16 to 2018-2019. Placing reliance on the guidelines contained in the Postal Directorate letter No.A-34020/27/2015-DE dated 15/17.03.2017, learned Counsel submitted that ‘wait list’ for the various elements of quota of vacancies to be filled up by examination

in respect of Postman and MTS cadre shall be prepared Recruiting Division/Unit-wise and category-wise upto the extent of vacancies announced for a particular category and such list will be kept operative for a period of one year extendable upto another one year or till the next examination is held, whichever is earlier. The Postman/Mail Guard examination for the next vacancy year i.e., for the year 2020 was held on 10.01.2021 and subsequently results were declared vide Memo dated 09.06.2021 issued by Respondent No.2. Since the examination for the next year was also conducted and results were declared and there is no question of declaration of further results for the vacancy year 2019 as claimed by the applicant, Respondent No.4 informed vide impugned order regarding the rejection of the request of the applicant made by the competent authority. Thus justifying the impugned order learned Counsel sought for dismissal of the OA.

5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, the point that arises for our consideration is, whether the impugned order dated 31.05.2022 issued by the Respondent No.4 rejecting the request of the applicant to consider her

candidature for Postman cadre relating to the vacancy year 2018 and 2019, pursuant to the recruitment notification dated 20.08.2019 issued by the Respondent No.3 is justifiable?

6. For adjudging the lis involved, it is necessary to record the chronological events giving rise to the cause of action for the applicant to approach this Tribunal. Undisputed facts are that the applicant appeared for the LDCE held on 29.09.2019 for the post of Postman cadre from MTS/GDS pursuant to the recruitment notification dated 20.08.2019 and secured 76 marks. Four candidates were declared successful for the post of Postman against the vacancy for the year 2019 as per the examination results declared vide memo dated 20.04.2020. Shri Vijayakumar S. Chubachi, UR category candidate had scored 80 marks. However, he was not promoted immediately in view of the currency of punishment owing to disciplinary proceedings concluded against him. In the meantime, the said Shri Vijayakumar S. Chubachi had appeared for the LDCE conducted for the post of PA/SA and got selected. Consequently, he submitted his willingness to accept the post of PA/SA cadre vide his letter dated 08.05.2021. In terms of

the instructions contained in Postal Directorate dated 15/17.03.2017 (Annexure R4), the period of validity of the wait list is for a period of one year extendable upto another one year or till next examination is held, whichever is earlier. The one year period would be from 20.04.2020 to 20.04.2021. The next examination for the post of Postman/Mail Guard was held on 10.01.2021 and the results of the said LDCE were declared vide memo dated 09.06.2021 issued by the Respondent No.2. Though as per Annexure R4, the wait list will get operated for a period of one year and extendable to another one year, since the next examination was held on 10.01.2021 i.e., being earlier to another one year, the second portion of the period of validity i.e., ‘or till the next examination is held whichever is earlier’, is applicable. Accordingly, the wait list has ceased to be in operation from 10.01.2021, the date of next LDCE held.

7. It is pertinent to note that Shri Vijayakumar S. Chubachi has given his willingness to accept the post of PA/SA vide his letter dated 08.05.2021 (Annexure A4) subsequent to the wait list becoming in- operative. On such willingness given by Shri Vijayakumar S.

Chubachi, the applicant has made a request to consider her candidature for the vacancy year 2019 having secured 76 marks in the LDCE held on 29.09.2019, immediate next candidate in the merit list. Thus the cause of action has arisen to the applicant after the expiry of operative period of the wait list.

8. In view of the aforesaid factual aspects vis-à-vis extant guidelines, Annexure R4, no irregularity or illegality is found in the impugned order. Since Postman/Mail Guard examination for the next vacancy year was held and the results were declared, declaring further results for the vacancy year 2018-2019 would not arise.

9. For the reasons aforesaid, OA is devoid of merit. Resultantly, OA stands dismissed. No order as to costs.

(RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA) (JUSTICE S.SUJATHA)

MEMBER(A)

MEMBER(J)

sd.