Delhi High Court
Union Of India And Ors. vs Sh. Virender Kumar Dahiya on 28 August, 2014
$~14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 28.08.2014
+ W.P.(C) 4833/2014
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through : Sh. Anuj Aggarwal, Sh. Gaurav Khanna
and Ms.. Niti Jain, Advocates.
Versus
SH. VIRENDER KUMAR DAHIYA ..... Respondent
Through : Sh. Ravi Dahiya, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT)
%
1. The petitioner, Union of India (UOI), represented through the
Chief Postmaster General, is aggrieved by the order of the Central
Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dated 10.01.2014 in O.A.
No.3578/2012. The impugned order permitted the
respondent/applicant to appear and participate in the next selection
process for the post of Inspector of Posts, by considering him as
eligible to compete for it.
2. The brief facts are that the applicant/respondent, joined the
Department of Posts on 11.07.1997 as Postal Assistant. The
Department of Posts invited applications for promotion to the grade of
W.P.(C) 4833/2014 Page 1
Postmaster Grade-I through Limited Departmental Competitive
Examination (LDCE) on 13.04.2011. Later, similar applications were
invited for promotion to the post of Inspector of Posts through a
LDCE, to be held in October, 2011. It is not in dispute that the
respondent/applicant was eligible to apply for both these posts and he
did so. It is worth mentioning at this stage that the post of Inspector of
Posts carries a higher pay scale as compared with that of Postmaster
Grade-I. Since the LDCE for Postmaster Grade-I was held earlier in
point of time and, consequently, its results were declared earlier, the
respondent/applicant being a meritorious candidate, was selected and
promoted as Postmaster Grade-I in the pay scale of `5200-20,200/- on
13.08.2011. Since the respondent/applicant had applied for
participation in the LDCE for Inspector of Posts, he sought Admit
Cards etc. from the Department, which were refused in September
2011. The applicant represented against this on 05.09.2011. The
Department, however, did not permit the applicant to participate in the
LDCE held in October, 2011 for selection to the post of Inspector of
Posts. He, therefore, filed O.A. No.3776/2011 before the CAT. By its
order dated 13.07.2012, the CAT allowed that application and directed
the petitioner/UOI to decide the matter afresh. In the course of its
order, the CAT inter alia held as follows:
"12. Once on the date of invitation of applications for the
post in question and also on the last date for submission of
applications for it, the applicant fulfilled the eligibility
condition prescribed in the Recruitment Rules for the said
post, by issuing letter dated 24.8.2011 the respondents could
not have rendered him ineligible for participating in the
W.P.(C) 4833/2014 Page 2
selection process. They cannot be allowed to defeat the
provisions of Recruitment Rules by issuing departmental
communications/letters."
3. The petitioner/UOI, further to the liberty granted by the CAT,
went into the matter and communicated through its letter dated
25.09.2012 its refusal to permit the respondent/applicant to compete in
the LDCE. Its contention this time round was that, having accepted the
appointment as Postmaster Grade-I, the respondent applicant was
ineligible. The CAT, in its impugned order, relied upon its previous
order in O.A. No. 3776/2011 and allowed the original application
preferred by the respondent.
4. Learned counsel reiterates the grounds urged in support of the
present writ petition and states that it was open for the respondent
applicant to refuse the appointment to the grade of Postmaster Grade-
I, if he was keen on competing for the post of Inspector of Posts.
Having accepted the appointment, he was rendered ineligible as a
consequence of operation of the rules. Therefore, argued learned
counsel, the CAT fell into error in granting liberty to the respondent to
compete in the next LDCE.
5. This Court has considered the submissions. What is not
disputed in this case is that on the relevant dates for determination of
eligibility, i.e. 12th May, 2011 and 30th June, 2011 - in respect of the
post of Postmaster Grade-I and Inspector of Posts respectively, the
respondent applicant was indeed eligible for applying for both the
posts. It is also not disputed that he did so. It is an entirely fortuitous
circumstance that the department decided to hold the selection process
W.P.(C) 4833/2014 Page 3
of LDCE in respect of the Postmaster Grade-I earlier than that of
Inspector of Posts. Being a meritorious candidate, the respondent
applicant was selected as Postmaster Grade-I. However, this fortuitous
circumstance is now being used against him to prevent his legitimate
claim for competing in respect of the post of Inspector of Posts, which
concededly, carries higher pay. We notice that the CAT had relied
upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh
2003 (1) SC SLJ 56 and Mills Douglas Michael and Ors. v. UOI and
Ors. JT 1996 (4) SC 189, where the Court had held that the eligibility
of candidate for a post has to be determined with reference to the date
of advertisement or notification. The stand of the petitioner, to say the
least, appears to be absurd and opposed to reason. It seeks to suppress
merit and kill the motivation of its employees to excel and compete. In
these circumstances, and having regard to the conspectus of facts in
this case, this Court is of the opinion that the directions contained in
the impugned order are fair and reasonable and do not call for
interference. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT
(JUDGE)
VIPIN SANGHI
(JUDGE)
AUGUST 28, 2014
'ajk'
W.P.(C) 4833/2014 Page 4
