Kerala High Court
Jithu.L.Dev vs The Chief General Manager on 27 January, 2025
Author: Amit Rawal
Bench: Amit Rawal
OP (CAT) NO. 14 OF 2019 -1-
2025:KER:8276
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR
MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 7TH MAGHA, 1946
OP (CAT) NO. 14 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.08.2018 IN OA NO.190 OF
2014 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH
PETITIONER/APPLICANT:
JITHU.L.DEV
AGED 29 YEARS
XD/O SAHADEVAN, PARANKIMANVILA VEEDU,
NEELESWARAM P.O., KOTTARAKKARA,
KOLLAM-691 505.
BY ADVS.
SRI.DIPU.R
SRI.SANAL P.RAJ
SRI.K.S.BAIJU
SMT.K.P.SUSMITHA
SMT. DEVI KRIPA R.
SMT.DHANYA BABU
SMT.P.A.PRIYA
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER
KERALA CIRCLE, BHARATH SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED
(BSNL), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.
OP (CAT) NO. 14 OF 2019 -2-
2025:KER:8276
2 THE GENERAL MANAGER,
TELECOM DISTRICT, BSNL BHAVAN,
VELLIYITTAPPALAM, KOLLAM-691 012.
3 SHAMMNAD O.A.,
NISHAD BHAVAN, CHARIMOODU,
VELLIMON, KOLLAM-691511.
BY ADV
SRI.P.J.PHILIP, SC, BSNL
THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
27.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
OP (CAT) NO. 14 OF 2019 -3-
2025:KER:8276
JUDGMENT
AMIT RAWAL, J
Present O.P.(CAT) is directed against the
judgment dated 16.08.2017 of the Central Administrative
Tribunal, whereby the challenge laid down by the
petitioner in selecting the party respondent under the
OBC category and pushing down the applicant -
petitioner in the waiting list of the OBC category, has not
been found in his favor.
2. The facts in brief for adjudication of the
controversy in dispute are enumerated hereunder:
In pursuance to the notification issued by the
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) for direct
recruitment to the post of Telecom Technical Assistants
(hereinafter called 'TTA', for short), many persons
including the petitioner-applicant and party respondents
had submitted applications. On 14.07.2013, written test
was conducted and the petitioner was included in the list
as suitable candidate under OBC Category. However,
2025:KER:8276
subsequently vide Annexure A4, was pushed down in the
waiting list, as the party respondent was inadvertently
put by the respondents in the zone of consideration of
General Category, without noticing the fact that he had
applied under the OBC Category with age relaxation.
3. Noticing the judgments on this point i.e.,
Jitendra Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. [(2010) 3
SCC 119] and Deepa E.V. Vs. Union of India and
Others (2017) 12 SCC 680), learned Tribunal rejected
the case on the premise that the candidates particularly
applied for the reserved category posts, cannot be
considered in the General Category. The case in hand is
not of that nature, where the applicant subsequently had
applied for age relaxation, though had submitted an
application under general category. In the initial stage,
had only submitted an application under the OBC
Category with age relaxation. It was an inadvertent
mistake on behalf of the respondents in placing him
under the General Category list and therefore his name
2025:KER:8276
was not shown in the selected list. It is also a matter of
record that the party respondents had secured more
marks than the petitioner. Deepa E.V.(supra) has
subsequently been followed by honourable Supreme
Court in Gaurav Pradhan v. State of Rajasthan
(2018 (11) SCC 352), Niravkumar Dilipbhai
Makwana v. Gujarat Public Service Commission
and Others (2019 (7) SCC 383), State (NCT of
Delhi) v. Pradeep Kumar, (2019) 10 SCC 120
where similar view as expressed in the Deepa E.V.
(supra) have been taken.
4) We would be failing in our duty in not
extracting the relevant portion of the judgment of the
Central Administrative Tribunal (paragraph 9). The same
reads as under:
"9. Learned senior counsel appearing for the
respondents has also drawn our attention to
paragraph Nos.65 and 72 in Jitendra Kumar
Singh(supra) to contend that principle
in Jitendra Kumar Singh(supra) are in the
context of interpretation of U.P. Act 1994 and in
2025:KER:8276
the particular factual situation of the said case.
Paragraphs 65 and 72, read as under:-
"65. In any event the entire issue in the
present appeals need not be decided on the
general principles of law laid down in various
judgments as noticed above. In these
matters, we are concerned with the
interpretation of the 1994 Act, the
Instructions dated 25.3.1994 and the G.O.
dated 26.2.1999. The controversy herein
centres around the limited issue as to
whether an OBC who has applied exercising
his option as a reserved category candidate,
thus becoming eligible to be considered
against a reserved vacancy, can also be
considered against an unreserved vacancy if
he/she secures more marks than the last
candidate in the general category.
72. Soon after the enforcement of the 1994
Act the Government issued instructions
dated 25.3.1994 on the subject of reservation
for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and
other backward groups in the Uttar Pradesh
Public Services. These instructions, inter
alia, provide as under:-
"4. If any person belonging to reserved
categories is selected on the basis of
merits in open competition along with
general category candidates, then he
2025:KER:8276
will not be adjusted towards reserved
category, that is, he shall be deemed to
have been adjusted against the
unreserved vacancies. It shall be
immaterial that he has availed any
facility or relaxation (like relaxation in
age limit) available to reserved
category."
From the above it becomes quite apparent that
the relaxation in age limit is merely to enable
the reserved category candidate to compete
with the general category candidate, all other
things being equal. The State has not treated
the relaxation in age and fee as relaxation in the
standard for selection, based on the merit of the
candidate in the selection test i.e. Main Written
Test followed by Interview. Therefore, such
relaxations cannot deprive a reserved category
candidate of the right to be considered as a
general category candidate on the basis of merit
in the competitive examination. Sub-section (2)
of Section 8 further provides that Government
Orders in force on the commencement of the
Act in respect of the concessions and
relaxations including relaxation in upper age
limit which are not inconsistent with the Act
continue to be applicable till they are modified
or revoked."
5. We are of the view that the findings of the
2025:KER:8276
tribunal is perfectly in consonance with the judgment in
Deepa E.V (supra) as the party respondent had never
applied under General Category, therefore was required
to be considered under the OBC Category with age
relaxation. No merit for interference is made out in the
matter.
O.P.(CAT) stands dismissed.
Sd/-
AMIT RAWAL
JUDGE
Sd/-
K. V. JAYAKUMAR
JUDGE
vv
2025:KER:8276
APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 14/2019
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE CAT
ERNAKULAM BENCH IN O.A.NO.190/2014,
DATED 16.8.2018.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.(AMENDED)
NO.190/2014 ALONG WITH THE ANNEXURES.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED
BY THE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 IN THE O.A
ALONG WITH ANNEXURES.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REPLY
STATEMENT FILED BY THE IST AND 2ND
RESPONDENTS TO THE AMENDED O.A.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED
BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ALONG WITH
ANNEXURE.
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF CALL LETTER ISSUED TO THE
APPLICANT.
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED
TO THE APPLICANT FOR CERTIFICATE
VERIFICATION.
ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF
THE RANK LIST PUBLISHED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.AGM
(R&E) TTADR/CON/2103/RESULT 13 DATED
28.1.2014 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS
ANNEXURE R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION OF TTA
DIRECT RECRUITMENT EXAMINATION 2012.
2025:KER:8276
ANNEXURE R1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE RESULT OF THE
EXAMINATION DATED 02.01.2014 TO THE
CADRE OF TTA.
ANNEXURE R1(C) TRUE COPY OF THE DATE OF BIRTH OF
CANDIDATES SELECTED IN THE 1ST LIST.
ANNEXURE R1(D) TRUE COPY OF THE CORRIGENDUM DATED
28.01.2014.
ANNEXURE R1(E) TRUE COPY OF THE CANDIDATES SELECTED
FROM THE WAITING LIST.
ANNEXURE R1(F) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.1-12/98-NCG
ISSUED BY DOT.
ANNEXURE R1(G) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED
05.04.2014 TO THE REPRESENTATION FILED
BY THE APPLICANT.
ANNEXURE R3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE SECONDARY SCHOOL
LEAVING CERTIFICATE OF THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
