Kerala High Court
Sajeendran R vs Union Of India on 4 June, 2024
Author: Amit Rawal
Bench: Amit Rawal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 14TH JYAISHTA, 1946
OP (CAT) NO. 99 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22.05.2024 IN OA NO.224 OF 2023 OF
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH
PETITIONER(S)/APPLICANT IN OA :
SAJEENDRAN R AGED 47 YEARS S/O LATE D. RAVINDRAN NAIR,
POSTAL ASSISTANT, PALARIVATTOM P.O, ERNAKULAM,
KERALA - 682 025. (NOW WORKING AT OFFICE OF THE
POSTMASTER GENERAL, CENTRAL REGION, KOCHI - 682 020)
RESIDING AT SANTHA BHAVANAM, GRAMKOTTKONAM, POOVATHUR
PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695611
BY ADVS. P.NANDAKUMAR
VIVEK VIJAYAKUMAR
S.ANEESH
SILPA SREEKUMAR
MERIN K JIMMY
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS IN OA :
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS
O.P.(CAT) No.99 of 2024
2
NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
2 THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL, KERALA CIRCLE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695001
3 THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES
OFFICE OF THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES,
ERNAKULAM POSTAL DIVISION, ERNAKULAM, KERALA,
PIN - 682011
4 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES,
LAKSHADWEEP DIVISION, KAVARATTI, UNION TERRITORY OF
LAKSHADWEEP, PIN - 682555
5 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES
ERNAKULAM POSTAL DIVISION (HOLDING THE ADDITIONAL
CHARGE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES LAKSHADWEEP
POSTAL DIVISION), HEAD POST OFFICE, HOSPITAL ROAD,
COCHIN, KERALA, PIN - 682011
6 THE POSTMASTER PALARIVATTOM POST OFFICE,
PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM, KERALA, PIN - 682025
SRI T C KRISHNA SCGC
THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.06.2024,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
O.P.(CAT) No.99 of 2024
3
JUDGMENT
AMIT RAWAL, J.
This Original Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India is directed against the order dated 22.05.2024 in O.A. No.224
of 2023 of the Central Administrative Tribunal whereby the following
claims of the petitioner have been rejected.
a. To quash Annexure A4 to the extent it notifies vacancies in
excess of the quota earmarked for promotion by LDCE quota as per
Annexure A15 Recruitment Rules and to the extent it allots the
applicant to Lakshadweep Division and to quash Annexure A6 and
A10 orders to the extent to which they allot the applicant to
Lakshadweep Division and direct the applicant to join duty at
Lakshadweep Division;
aa.. To set aside Annexure A13 issued by the 2nd respondent and
Annexure A14 order issued by the 6th respondent
b. Declare that the applicant is entitled to be granted posting to any
of the vacant posts of Postal Assistant, either at Ernakulam Division
or Thiruvalla Division.
C. To direct the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on
Annexures A5 and A8 representations in a time limit to be decided
by this Honourable Tribunal;
d. To grant such other reliefs as may be prayed for and the court
may deem fit to grant, and
e. Grant the cost of this Original Application.
2. Brief facts for the adjudication of the controversy reads as
under :
2.1 Petitioner, in pursuance to the selection process conducted
on 07.8.2022 whereby the respondent had taken steps to fill up the
post of Assistants in the Postal Department, undergone necessary
test along-with desired procedure and came out successful with
rank No.145. The respondents notified one hundred seventy (170)
posts of Postal Assistants and Sorting Assistants (PA & SA) including
eleven (11) vacancies at Ernakulam and thirteen (13) vacancies at
Thiruvalla division. As per Ext.A3, the applicant gave his first option
as Ernakulam and the 12th option was for Lakshadweep.
2.2 The contention of the petitioner before the Central
Administrative Tribunal in plain and simple words was that the
candidate securing less marks as per the merit prescribed for the
selection process and as well as the admission in the counter
statement qua according to placement in the division by taking into
consideration the 12th option and not the other options, at present
are undergoing training at Ernakulam for a period of one year. This
aspect has not been taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal
while rejecting the case of the petitioner.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents
do not deny the specific averments in the counter affidavit with
regard to the allotment of the division as aforesaid.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
examined the records.
5. On a perusal of the additional list as well as the original list,
it is found that one of the candidates whose name is Renju Krishna
scored 67 marks whereas the petitioner 68. She has been allotted
at Pathanamthitta whereas the petitioner at Lakshadweep. The
aforementioned contention and the fact had not been touched in its
correct perspective by the Tribunal while dismissing the case.
Paragraph No.20 of the order reads as under:
20. It is the definite case of the respondents that
allotments were made based on the merit position of the
candidates, availability of vacancies and preferences given by
each candidate. The applicant stands at sl.No.145 in the merit
list of 154 candidates. He has been allotted to Lakshadweep
based on his merit position. It has been clearly asserted by the
respondents that vacancies were not available at his first 11
preferences. The respondents have explained as to how a few
vacancies were kept unfilled in Ernakulam and Thiruvalla
divisions, which were reserved for persons with benchmark
disabilities. Re-assessment of vacancies also were taken place
after Rule 138 transfers. PwBD vacancies were filled up in March
2023 after getting clarification from the Directorate.
6. The aforementioned findings do call for interference. Since
all the candidates are undergoing training, we are of the view that
no harm and prejudice would be caused to the respondent
department if directed to take a call considering the observations as
well as the materials on record by affording opportunity to the
affected parties in accordance with law. Let this exercise be
undertaken as expeditiously as possible within a period of two
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is
made clear that the said directions shall be complied with
uninfluenced by the finding rendered by the Tribunal.
Original petition stands disposed off.
Sd/-
AMIT RAWAL, JUDGE
Sd/-
NS EASWARAN S., JUDGE
APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 99/2024
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. RECTT/10-3/2022 DATED
15.12.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Annexure A6 ORDER NO. BB/LKD/2022-LGO DATED 28.12.2022 ISSUED
BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
Annexure A9 LETTER NO. BB-16/22-23 DATED 12.05.2023 ISSUED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Annexure TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. RECTT/10-3/OA.224/2023
A13 DATED 05.06.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Annexure TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE REPORT AND RECEIPT OF CASH
A14 AND STAMPS ON TRANSFER OF CHARGE DATED 06.06.2023
ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.10.2010 IN O.A NO.
643 OF 2010 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED VACANCY NOTIFICATION NO.
RECTT/10-3/2022 DATED 12.08.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE PREFERENCE OF DIVISIONAL/ UNIT FOR
RECRUITMENT TO THE CADRE OF PA/SA FOR THE YEAR 2022
DATED 30/9/2022
Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19.12.2022
SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NO. BB-14/LGO/2022 DATED
16.01.2023 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Annexure A8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 03.03.2023
SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
AnnexureA15 TRUE COPY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF POSTS (POSTAL
ASSISTANCE & SORTING ASSISTANT) RECRUITMENT RULES,
Annexure R1 DETAILS OF THE DIVISION WISE VACANCY LIST OF THE
PWD CANDIDATES
Annexure R2 TRUE COPY OF ALLOTMENT ORDER DATED 16.03.2023 OF
THE 13 UR CANDIDATES
Annexure TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. ST/36/R-38/ONLINE/2022
A10 DATED 04.10.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Annexure TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER F NO.141-141/2013-SPB-II
A11 DATED 17.11.2019 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR (SPN),
DEPARTMENT OF POSTS
Annexure TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. X-12/6/2021-SPN-II DATED
A12 03.02.2023 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR GENERAL
(SPN), DEPARTMENT OF POSTS
Annexure R3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. RECTT/10-3/2022 DATED
20.12.2022
Annexure R4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. RECTT/10-3/2022 DATED
16.03.2023
Annexure R5 TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE REPORT OF THE APPLICANT
Annexure R6 TRUE COPY OF THE DIRECTORATE LETTER NO. X-
12/6/2021-SPN-II DATED 31.12.2021
Annexure TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF MEMO NO. ST/5-
A16 2/CGLE-2022 DATED 25.09.2023 ISSUED BY THE
ASSISTANT POST MASTER GENERAL(STAFF)
Annexure R7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. W-18/2/2022-SPN-I DATED
23.06.2023
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 22.05.2024 IN OA
NO.180/00224/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF AMENDED O A NO. 180/00224/2023 ALONG
WITH ANNEXURES
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER DATED 22.05.2023 ISSUED
BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF PRELIMINARY REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY
THE RESPONDENTS ALONG WITH ANNEXURES
Exhibit P5 REJOINDER FILED BY THE APPLICANT ALONG WITH
ANNEXURES
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER DATED 25.05.2023 ISSUED
BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE
RESPONDENTS ALONG WITH ANNEXURES
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF REJOINDER FILED BY THE APPLICANT ALONG
WITH ANNEXURE
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY
THE RESPONDENTS ALONG WITH ANNEXURE
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF O.M NO. 17-08/2018-SPB-I DATED
16.05.2019 ALONG WITH ANNEXURE C
