Delhi High Court
Satish Kumar Meena vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 February, 2017
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3591/2016
Reserved on: 29th November, 2016
% Date of Decision: 22nd February, 2017
SATISH KUMAR MEENA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Bhakti Vardhan Singh and
Mr.Amit Kumar Pathak, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Ms. Rajdipa Behura, Advocate with
Ms. Garima Singh Yadav, Mr. Hilomon Kani and
Ms. Kriti Handa, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR
CHANDER SHEKHAR, J.
The petitioner in this writ petition impugns the order dated 22nd
January, 2016, whereby OA No. 592/2013 filed by him has been dismissed
by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal,
for short) holding that he was not eligible for appointment as Inspector of
Posts since he had been promoted as Postmaster Grade-I.
2. The Tribunal in the impugned order has referred to the decision of
the Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) No. 4833/2014, Union of India v.
Virender Kumar Dahiya decided on 28th August, 2014 and also the
decision dated 11th December, 2014 in W.P. (C) No.1564/2013, Jawahar
Singh v. Union of India and Ors, but did not follow and adhere to the ratio
laid down therein. The Tribunal preferred to follow the decision of the
Karnataka High Court dated 10th June, 2013 in W.P. (C) No. 35449-
35450/2012, Sri Rananath S M & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr, wherein
a contrary view has been expressed. The reasoning of the Tribunal is that
executive rules/instructions as per Article 73 of the Constitution were
binding and should be followed.
3. The petitioner joined the service of Indian Posts as Postal Assistant
in Auraiya Head Post Office under Etawah Division on 18th May, 2005.
4. On 12th June, 2011, the petitioner appeared in a Limited
Departmental Competitive Examination for promotion to the cadre of
Postmaster Grade-I. Results were declared on 30th June, 2011, but the
petitioner‟s result was withheld. The petitioner made representations
against withholding of his result and the result was finally declared on 16 th
November, 2011. The petitioner was declared as selected with the remarks
„selected against one withheld OC vacancy‟.
5. By letter dated 7th December, 2011, the petitioner‟s posting order in
the cadre of Postmaster Grade-I was issued. He was allocated to Agra
Division. By letter dated 12th December, 2011, the petitioner declined his
promotion to the post of Postmaster Grade-I. However, this request was
not accepted by the respondents and in these circumstances, the petitioner
assumed charge as Postmaster Grade-I on 31st December, 2011 at Bah Post
Office in Agra Division.
6. By another notification dated 14th July, 2011, the respondents had
invited eligible employees to appear in the Limited Departmental
Competitive Examination for promotion to the cadre of Inspector of Posts.
The petitioner being eligible had appeared in the said examination on 15th
and 16th October, 2011. However, as complaints were received in respect of
Paper-III held on 16th October, 2011, a re-examination of Paper-III was
held on 29th January, 2012, i.e. after the petitioner had joined the post of
Postmaster Grade-I. The petitioner was permitted and allowed to sit for
Paper III examination held on 29th January, 2012, after specific permission
was granted by the respondents. Subsequently, the petitioner's result was
withheld on the ground that he had been promoted as Postmaster Grade-I
and those who were appointed as Postmaster Grade-I were not eligible for
promotion to the post of Inspector of Posts on the basis of the policy
decision communicated by the letter dated 30 th August, 2011 issued by the
respondents.
7. It is an accepted and admitted fact that promotion by way of Limited
Departmental Competitive Examination to the cadre of Postmaster Grade-I
and cadre of Inspector of Posts were governed by the Recruitment Rules
framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution.
8. The Ministry of Communication and Information Technology in
exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the
Constitution, had notified the Department of Posts, Inspectors of Posts
Recruitment Rules 2001, regulating the method of recruitment to the post of
Inspectors of Posts. The 2001 Rules were superseded vide notification dated
01.02.2013. The new Rules were applicable from the date of publication.
Therefore, at the time when the Limited Departmental Competitive
Examination was held in October, 2011, the 2001 Recruitment Rules were
applicable. Lest there be any confusion, the relevant Rules from the
Department of Posts, Inspectors of Posts Recruitment Rules 2001 have been
extracted below:-
"3. Method of recruitment, age limit and qualifications etc.-
The method of recruitment, age limit, qualification and the
scale of Pay attached thereto shall be as specified in columns
(5) to (14) of the said Schedule
4. Disqualification. No person,
(a) who has entered into or contracted a marriage with a
person having a spouse living, or
(b) who, having a spouse living, has entered into or
contracted a marriage with any person, shall be eligible for
appointment to any of the said post
Provided that the Central Government may, if satisfied
that such marriage is permissible under the personal law
applicable to such person and the other party to the marriage
and there are other grounds for doing so, exempt any person
from the operation of this rule.
Name Number of Classifica- Scale of Whether Age limit for Whether benefit of
of posts tion pay selection direct recruits added years of
post by merit service admissible
or under rule 30 of the
selection- Central Civil Service
cum- (Pension) Rules,
seniority 1972
or non-
selection
Inspec 2187* General Rs. Non- 18-27 years Not applicable
tors of (2001) Central 5500- applicable
Posts *Subject to Service, 175-
variation Group 'B' 9000
dependent Non
on workload Gazetted,
Ministerial
Education and other Whether age and Period of Method of recruitment
qualification required for educational qualifications probations if whether by direct
direct recruits prescribed for direct any recruitment or by
recruits will apply in the promotion or by Deputation
case of promotees or Absorption and
percentage of the posts to
be filled by various
methods.
Degree of a recognised QualificationNo Agenot Two Years (i) 33.34 per cent direct
university or equivalent exceeding 40 years for recruitment through Staff
appearing at the Limited Selection Commission, and
Departmental Competitive (ii) 66.66 per cent
Examination, relaxation by promotion through Limited
5 years for Scheduled Departmental Competitive
Caste/Scheduled Tribe Examination
Officers
In case of recruitment by If a Departmental Circumstances in which U.P.S.C.
Promotion/Deputation/Absorption grades Promotion To be consulted in making
from which Committee exists, recruitment
Promotion/Deputation/Absorption to be what is its
made composition
Promotion through Limited Departmental Group 'B' Consultation with Union Public
Competitive Examination Departmental Service Commission not
(a) Not less than five years regular service in Promotion necessary
the grade of Postal/Sorting Assistants, Lower Committee (for
Selection Grade Officials, Stenographers in - considering
- Post Offices, Railway Mail Service, or confirmation)
- Postal/Railway Mail Service, Divisional
Offices, Circle Office, or
-Foreign Post, or
- Returned Letter Offices, or
-Postal Store Depots, or
-Saving Bank Control Organisation, or
-Internal Check Organisation of the Circle
(b) (i) Not less than five years regular service in
Postal Accounts Office in the grade of
(a) Stenographers, or
(b) Junior Accountants 1 Post Master
Provided that they may opt for appearing in General/Director of
the Inspector of Posts line in case of selection Postal Services
while appearing in the Inspectors Examination Chairman
2 Two Group 'A'
officers nominated
(ii) Not less than Nine years regular service in by the Chief
the grade of Lower Division Clerks in Postal Postmaster General,
Accounts Office amongst them one
Provided that they may opt for appearing in should be in the
the Inspector of Posts line in case of selection grade of Director
while appearing in the Inspectors Examination Members
Note 1: A candidate is allowed a maximum of 3 Officer belonging
four chances to appear in the Departmental to Scheduled Caste/
Examination Scheduled Tribe of
Provided that the candidate, who secure more appropriate status
than 70 per cent aggregate marks in fourth nominated by the
chance may be allowed/one more chance as a Chief Postmaster
special case General Member
Provided further that a candidate belonging to
Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe may subject
to his eligibility be allowed a maximum of six
chances to appear in the said Examination
Provided further also that the said Scheduled
Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidate shall, if he is
successful at the said Examination in his fifth
or sixth chance, be entitled to be appointed
only to a post reserved for Scheduled Castes
or Scheduled Tribes, as the case may be
Note 2: Candidate who are serving or having
served in Army Postal Service may be given
such concessions in regard to age limit,
maximum number of chances to appear in the
Departmental Examination for appointment in
those posts on obtaining the minimum
qualifying marks as may be decided by the
Central Government, from time to time.
Note 3: Syllabus for the Limited Departmental
Competitive Examination and the percentage
of marks required for qualifying the said
examination shall be as decided by the
department from time to time.
"
Rule 3 stipulated that the method of recruitment, age limit, qualifications
and other matters relating to the said post was specified in columns 5 to 14
of the Schedule. The Schedule, in column 11, had stipulated that 66.66% of
vacancies would be filled up by promotion through Limited Competitive
Departmental Examination. Perusal of the Schedule indicates that
candidates not exceeding 40 years of age and having a degree from a
recognized university or equivalent and not less than five years of regular
service in the grade of Postal/Sorting Assistant, Lower Selection Grade
Official, Stenographers etc. were eligible.
9. The Ministry of Communication and Information Technology vide
notification dated 09.09.2010 had similarly enacted recruitment rules for the
posts of Senior Postmaster Group-B Gazetted, Postmaster Grade III and II -
Group B non-Gazetted and Postmaster Grade - I Group C non-Gazetted,
which are reproduced below:-
"3. Method of recruitment, age limit, qualifications etc.- The
method of recruitment, age limit, qualifications and other
matters relating to the said posts shall be as specified in
columns 5 to 14 of the Schedule
XXX
5. Disqualification. No person,
(a) who has entered into or contracted a marriage with a
person having a spouse living, or
(b) who, having a spouse living, has entered into or
contracted a marriage with any person,
shall be eligible for appointment to any of the said post
Provided that the Central Government may, if satisfied
that such marriage is permissible under the personal law
applicable to such person and the other party to the marriage
and there are other grounds for doing so, exempt any person
from the operation of this rule.
Name No. Classifi Pay Band Whether Whether AgeEducati Whether age and educational
of of cation and selection benefit of limit
onal qualifications prescribed for
Post posts Grade post oradded forand direct recruits will apply in the
Pay/Scale non- years of direct
other case of promotees
of pay selection service recrui
qualific
post admissibl ts ations
e require
d for
direct
recruits
Postm 2097 Genera Rs. 5200- Selectio Not Not Not Not applicable
aster (2010 l 20200 n applica applic applica
Grade )* Central (PB-1) ble able ble
-I *Subj Service Grade
ect to Group Pay Rs.
variat 'C' 2800/-
ion (Non-
depe Gazett
ndent ed-
on Ministe
work rial)
load
Period of Method of In case of recruitment by If a Circumstances
probation, recruitment whether promotion/ or Departmental in which
if any by direct recruitment deputation/absorption, grades Promotion Union Public
or by promotion or by from which Committee Service
deputation/absorption promotion/deputation/absorption exists, what is Commission
and percentage of the to be made its to be
vacancies to be filled composition. consulted in
by various methods making
recruitment
Two Years Promotion through a By promotion through Limited Departmental Consultation
Limited Departmental Departmental Competitive Promotion with UPSC not
Competitive Examination, from amongst the Committee necessary.
Examination. Postal Assistants working in Post consisting of-
Offices in the pay band-1 and 1. Director of
Initial Constitution Grade Pay/Scale of Pay of Rs. Postal Services
5200-20200 + Grade Pay Rs. (Headquarters)
Officers who are 2400/- with five years of regular - Chairperson
holding the post in service in the grade. 2. Two officers
Lower Selection Grade of the level of
in PB-1 of Rs. 5200- Note 1: The scheme of the Senior Time
20200 + Grade Pay Rs. examination shall be as per the Scale/Junior
2800/- (Pre-revised Rs. administrative instructions issued Time Scale or
4500-7000) in regular by the Department from time to equivalent of
basis on Post Offices time the
shall be given an Department-
option to apply for Note 2: Where juniors who have Members
appointment as completed their
Postmaster Grade-1 at qualifying/eligibility service are
the commencement of being considered for promotion,
these rules under the their seniors would also be
initial constitution. A considered provided they are not
Screening Committee short of the requisite
constituting of the qualifying/eligibility service by
following shall assess more than half of such
the suitability of qualifying/eligibility service or two
officers who apply for years, whichever is less, and have
the appointment as successfully completed their
Postmaster Grade-I at probation period for promotion to
the commencement of the next higher grade along with
these rules,- their juniors who have already
1. Director of Postal completed such qualifying/
Services eligibility service.
(Headquarters) -
Chairperson Note 3: For the purpose of
2. Two officers of the computing minimum qualifying
level of Senior Time service for promotion, the service
Scale/ Junior Time rendered on a regular basis by an
Scale or equivalent of officer prior to 1.1.2006 (the date
the Department- from which the revised pay
Members structure based on the 6th Central
Pay Commission
recommendations has been
extended) shall be deemed to be
service rendered in the
corresponding pay/pay scale
extended based on the
recommendations of the Pay
Commission
10. The notified Recruitment Rules do not contain any stipulation or
condition that an employee, who has appeared and cleared the Limited
Departmental Competitive Examination for promotion and appointment to
the post of Postmaster Grade-I, would not be eligible and precluded from
appearing in the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination for
promotion to the cadre of Inspector of Posts. Pertinently, by notification
dated 14th July, 2011 the respondents had invited applications for the
Limited Departmental Competitive Examination for the post of Inspector of
Posts to be held on 3rd and 4th September, 2011 (which were eventually held
on 15th and 16th October, 2011 and on 29th January, 2012) also did not
stipulate or specify that candidates who had appeared for the departmental
examination for the post of Postmaster Grade-I would be barred from
appearing for the departmental examination for Inspector of Posts.
11. Referring to the Rule position, the High Court of Delhi in Virender
Kumar Dahiya (supra), had observed:-
"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 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".
12. Similarly, in Jawahar Singh (supra) the Delhi High Cour has held:-
"7. The facts of the present case are closely parallel to that of
Virender Kumar Dahiya (supra). So far as the distinction
sought to be made by the respondent - that the petitioner
underwent the training, is concerned, the Court is of the view
that these details cannot make any radical difference. If the
period of training i.e. four weeks is taken into account, the
distinction is really insignificant. The Petitioner wan (sic. was)
not put to notice that if he accepts appointment as Post Master I,
he would stand disqualified from being appointed as Inspector
of Posts, even though, he was eligible to apply for the said post
when he did".
13. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand has relied on
judgment of the High Court of Karnataka dated 10th June, 2013 in W.P.(C)
Nos. 35449-35450/2012, Sri Rananath S M & Anr. v. Union of India &
Anr wherein reliance was placed on the OM/notification dated 28.12.2011
whereby candidates who had cleared the Limited Departmental Competitive
Examination for the post of Postmaster Grade-I were appointed to the said
posts. The relevant clause of appointment notification dated 28th December,
2011 was as under:-
"2. Their further career progression will be in the hierarchy in the
Postmaster cadre only as per the provisions in the Recruitment Rules
and not in the General Line."
Referring to the said notification, the High Court of Karnataka has held:-
"11. On the other hand, submission of Sri Pramod, learned
standing counsel for the respondents is that these posts were
created for the first time in the year 2010 only to provide career
progression and by limited departmental examination only to
the in service candidates and it was not governed by any
method of recruitment, but an incentive examination offer made
to the candidates in the year 2010; that assuming that the
recruitment rules prevail over the executive orders/instructions
as the recruitment rules, 2001 prevails over the executive
orders, the rules as prevailed at the relevant time, did not
contemplate the post of „Post Master Grade-I‟ or the post of
„Inspector of Posts‟ and therefore the rules are not applicable.
XXXX
14. We find that the posts are not governed at the time of the
offer being made to them by any recruitment rules and they
being permitted to write the examination by the Department
based only on executive decision, creating the posts. The
grievance of the petitioners insofar as non consideration or non
appointment to the post of „Inspector of Posts‟ and the
disqualification being not as contemplated under rule-3 of the
rules is concerned, it is under the rules framed as in 2013.
Assuming these rules govern such appointments, it was not in
vogue at the time of the petitioners writing the examination."
14. The Tribunal, in Paragraph 4 of the impugned order dater 22 nd
January, 2016 has referred to the respondents‟ letter dated 9th August, 2011
which was a clarification issued by the Department of Posts to Heads of
Circles/ Chief Postmaster Generals regarding declination of promotion and
appointment to those already posted as Postmaster Grade-I after having
successfully cleared the departmental examination held on 12.06.2011. It
was stipulated that a candidate may decline appointment after successfully
clearing the departmental examination but before he is actually appointed as
Postmaster Grade-I. This letter dated 9th August, 2011 is not on record and
therefore we are unable to make any comment or observation regarding its
applicability.
15. The respondents in fact rely upon letter dated 30th August, 2011
which is extracted in extenso lest there be any confusion:
"Qualification for Appearing in IPO Exam for Postmaster Grade I
Officials
30 August 2011
No. 4-29/2011 SPB.II
Government of India
Ministry of Communication & IT
Department of Posts
Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg
New Delhi, Dated 24th August, 2011
To
The Chief Postmaster General
Uttar Pradesh Circle
Lucknow-226001.
Subject: Inspector of Posts Departmental Examination. Eligibility of
officials qualified in Departmental Postmaster Grade I Examination
Reg.
Sir,
I am directed to refer to Circle Officer letter No. Reett/ M- 20/ IPOs
Exam-2011/3. Dated 11.08.2011 on the above mentioned subject and
to say that candidates who qualified the Departmental Postmaster
Grade-I Examination and the officials who are undergoing training
for Postmaster Grade I may be permitted to appear in the Limited
Departmental Competitive Examination for promotion to the cadre of
Inspector of Posts (IPO) to be held on 3-4 September, 2011, if these
officials are not yet appointed as Postmaster Grade I.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
(D K Chanda)
Section Officer (SPB.II)
Copy to all Heads of Postal Circles/ Postmasters General "
16. In the beginning itself, we observe that we are bound by the decisions
of the Coordinate Bench of this Court. Even otherwise, we respectfully
agree with the reasoning given in Virender Kumar Dahiya (supra) and
Jawahar Singh (supra). The decision in Sri Ranganath S.M. (supra), we
respectfully opine, does not notice that recruitment/appointment to the cadre
of Inspector of Posts was governed by Recruitment Rules enacted in 2001.
Similarly, appointment/selection to the cadre of Postmaster Grade-I was
governed by Recruitment Rules enacted and enforced since 2010. The two
Rules prescribe the eligibility requirements, which were/are statutory. In
such circumstances, the executive instructions could not have created and
enacted a disqualification and barred the petitioner from seeking
appointment in the cadre of Inspector of Posts. This would amount to
introducing a new condition and adding a qualification which was not there
in the Recruitment Rules. This bar or condition cannot be imposed by way
of executive instructions, so as to supplant the Recruitment Rules.
17. The petitioner had also appeared in the Limited Departmental
Competitive Examination for promotion to the post of Postmaster, Grade-I,
which was held on 12th June, 2011 and the result of which in the case of the
petitioner was initially withheld and were subsequently declared on 16th
November, 2011. At that time, the petitioner was selected with the remarks
„selected against withheld OC vacancy‟. The petitioner was subsequently
issued posting order in the cadre of Postmaster, Grade-I and allocated Agra
Division vide letter dated 7th December, 2011. The petitioner declined the
said promotion to the post of Post Master, Grade-I on 12th December, 2011.
Concurrently, the petitioner being eligible had appeared in the Limited
Departmental Competitive Examination for the post of Inspector of Posts,
in October, 2011. If the results for promotion to the cadre of Inspector of
Posts had been declared in time and re-examination of Paper III was not
held, the present situation would not have arisen. Results of the Limited
Departmental Competitive Examination for promotion to the cadre of
Inspector of Posts were declared belatedly on 4th April, 2012, for re-
examination of paper III was conducted on 29th January, 2012. These were
fortuitous and unforeseen factors, over which the petitioner had no control.
It is pertinent that the petitioner was granted permission by the respondents
and was allowed to appear in Paper-III held on 29th January, 2012.
18. It is correct that the matters relating to creation or abolition of posts,
prescription of qualifications, stipulation of selection criteria etc. fall within
the Executive domain and cannot be substituted by judicial dictum.
Nevertheless, the said executive actions or the delegated legislation must
meet the test and should be in conformity with, Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution. Courts exercise the power of judicial review, when the
authorities have acted arbitrarily and the constitutional right of equality,
including equal opportunity, has been violated. Statutory Rules framed
under the proviso to Article 309 provide and ensure transparent and uniform
treatment. They prevent any abuse or discrimination from creeping into
matters relating to of employment and service conditions. In the present
case, we have statutory Recruitment Rules framed in exercise of the power
conferred under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. The
petitioner was eligible and qualified as per the Rules prevailing at the time
when he had appeared in the Limited Departmental Competitive
Examination for promotion to the cadre of Inspector of Posts held in
October, 2011. He had not incurred any disqualification, as per the said
Rules. Pertinently, the respondents had themselves, vide letter dated 30th
August, 2011, had averred that candidates who had qualified the
Departmental Examination for Postmaster, Grade-I including those who
were undergoing training for appointment to the said post, would be
permitted to appear in the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination
for promotion to the cadre of Inspector of Posts, if they had not already
been appointed as Postmaster Grade-I. This was fair and just in the given
facts. The letter did not stipulate that appointment as Postmaster Grade-I,
post the examination, would result in disqualification.
19. The Karnataka High Court‟s decision has proceeded on a factually
incorrect premise that there were no Recruitment Rules in position when the
Limited Departmental Competitive Examination for promotion to the grade
of Inspector of Posts was held and the rules were only notified for the first
time with effect from 1st February, 2013. It is in this context that primacy
was give to the executive instructions, which had stipulated that even if a
candidate has qualified and was eligible for promotion to the cadre of
Inspector of Posts, he would be disqualified if he had secured and been
appointed to the post of Postmaster, Grade-I.
20. The executive policy decision in the present case is not only contrary
to the Recruitment Rules, but fails to take into account relevant facts. In the
present case, the results for selection to the posts of Inspector of Posts were
delayed for administrative reasons. This delay was not factored and
considered before the letter dated 11th July, 2012 was issued to the
petitioner informing him that he was not eligible for promotion as Inspector
of Posts as he had been promoted and appointed as Postmaster Grade-I. The
fortuitous circumstances beyond the control of the candidates as per the
policy decision would bestow and confer right to appointment as Inspectors
of Posts to candidates lower in the order of merit and disqualify the
petitioner and others higher in the order of merit. It is in this context the
question of invidious discrimination would arise. We are unable to
understand the reasoning and ground to bar or prohibit the petitioner by
creating this fetter for selection/appointment, and even though they had
permitted the petitioner to appear in Paper No. III for the post of Inspector
of Posts on 29.01.2012. The oscillation demonstrates that the respondents
were themselves confused and uncertain. However, instead of being fair,
and giving the meritorious candidates a chance, they have denied and
deprived the petitioner his right to appointment, even after being selected.
21. Considering all the circumstances, for the foregoing reasons the
petition is allowed. The petitioner‟s case for appointment as Inspector of
Posts will be considered according to merit position in the selection process.
He would not be treated as disqualified as he was appointed as Postmaster
Grade-I. If selected, the petitioner‟s appointment will be with effect from
the date on which his immediate junior was appointed. However, only
notional benefit of pay fixation and all others consequential benefits
including seniority shall be given, but not the arrears of salary. The
consequential and necessary orders shall be issued by the respondents
within a period of six weeks from the date a copy of this order is received.
No orders as to costs.
(CHANDER SHEKHAR)
JUDGE
(SANJIV KHANNA)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 22, 2017/b
