No one appears for the respondents, even though notice is served.
2. The present Original Petition under Article 227 of the
16.10.2023 passed in O.A. No.180/00702/2019 by the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench.
3. The learned Counsel for the original petitioners submitted
had disposed of various Original Applications. The Union of India had
and dismissing the Original Application. Similarly, a coordinate Bench
in O.P.(CAT) No.62/2024 and disposed of the same. In view of the orders
OP (CAT) NO. 102 OF 2024
2025:KER:80322
No.62/2024. A photocopy of the judgment dated 31.05.2024 in O.P.(CAT)
No.62/2024 be kept in the records of this case.
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
JUDGE
P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
JUDGE
jjj
OP (CAT) NO. 102 OF 2024
2025:KER:80322
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION MEMO NO. B2/RECTT/POSTMAN 2018
&2019 DATED 18.09.2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.RECTT/12-2/2019 DATED
20.08.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE RECRUITMENT RULES TO THE POST OF POSTMAN
ISSUED AS PER GSR 899E DATED 20.09.2018 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Annexure R1 TRUE COPY OF THE ANNEXURE E OF DIRECTORATE LETTER DATED
16.05.2019 FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE POST OF MULTI TASK STAFF
(MTS), POSTMAN, MAIL GUARD, POSTAL ASSISTANT AND SORTING
ASSISTANT
Annexure R2 TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA OFFICIAL LANGUAGE(LEGISLATION)
ACT,1973 (ACT 15 OF 1973)
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION DATED 24.09.2019 IN O.A.
NO.180/00702/2019 FILED BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED 03.03.2020 IN O.A.
NO.180/00702/2019, FILED BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.10.2023 IN O.A. NO.
180/00702/2019, ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH
OP (CAT) NO. 62 OF 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 10TH JYAISHTA, 1946
OP (CAT) NO. 62 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 16.10.2023 IN OA NO.590 OF
2021 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH
PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS:
SAJITH KUMAR V.
H.KIRAN
VIVEK A.V.
AMMU M.
SREEHARI V.S.
SHERIN DAVIS
THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31.05.2024,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 31st day of May, 2024
JUDGMENT
Easwaran, J.
Respondents 1 to 3 in O.A.No.590/2021 are the petitioners
before this Court. The application was filed by the applicant
who was an aspirant to the post of Gramin Dak Sevak-Mail
Deliverer (GDS-MD). By Annexure-A1 notification dated
4.10.2021, applications were invited by the petitioners for
selection to the post of Gramin Dak Sevak. The applicant, who
was working as a Postman at Puthuppally SO under
Kayamkulam Sub Division and who joined service on 15.5.2015
as per appointment memo dated 24.11.2015, had applied for
the post. However, her application was not considered and she
was not allowed to take part in the examination, which
prompted her to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal
by way of Ext.P1 Application. The challenge in the Original
Application was to the specific clause in Annexures-A1 and A5,
OP (CAT) NO. 62 OF 2024
wherein there was an additional prescription of qualification
that the candidate should have studied Malayalam at least up to
10th Standard. Therefore, the following reliefs were sought for:
"(i) To quash clause (ii)c of the Annexure A1 and clause
(ii) of column 7 in Annexure A5.
(ii) To declare that clause (ii) of column 7 in Annexure A5
insisting that a candidate should have studied local
language atleast up to 10 th standard is a condition in
violation of Article 14 to 16 and Article 30 of the
Constitution of India.
(iii) To direct the respondents to permit the applicant to
take part in the Departmental examination pursuant to
Annexure A1 Notification and to grant her all consequential
benefits.
(iv) Alternatively direct the Respondents to implement the
conditions as regards local language only prospectively
against the employees who were recruited subsequently to
Annexure A5."
The respondents (petitioners herein) appeared and filed their
reply statement raising maintainability of the Original
Application. It was contended that none of the grounds raised
by the applicant was sustainable under law and that there was
no violation of any of the provisions of the Constitution,
especially Article 16. It was specifically pointed out that in
OP (CAT) NO. 62 OF 2024
terms of the interim order passed by the Tribunal, the
candidate was provisionally permitted to appear for competitive
examination. The prescription of qualification for appointment
is within the domain of the Department and therefore, that
cannot be subjected to judicial review. It was with an intention
to ensure betterment of service that the Rules were consciously
reviewed and modified in every organisation after assessing the
nature of job. The conditions/rules for job were
framed/modified on the basis of nature of work aiming a
constant improvement in service and since the work carried out
by a postman is unique in nature, special clause is essential for
recruitment to this cadre.
2. The Tribunal considered the issue along with a
batch of other Original Applications and came to the conclusion
that there is violation of Articles 15(1) and 16 of the
Constitution of India and that is discrimination made by the
Department in the matter of issuance of the notification,
wherein clause (ii) under column 7 has been issued with an
intention to restrict the candidate from competing for open
OP (CAT) NO. 62 OF 2024
selection and accordingly by the order impugned quashed
clause 7(iii) of the Recruitment Rules dated 20.9.2018 and also
clause 3(ii)(c) of the notification dated 26.8.2019.
3. In the above premise, Union of India is before us in a
petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
4. We have heard Sri.T.V.Vinu, learned Central
Government Counsel, and Sri.Sajith Kumar V., learned counsel
appearing for the respondent/applicant.
5. While the Original Petition was admitted, this Court
passed an interim order staying the operation of the impugned
order on condition that the petitioners shall not make
appointment without orders from this Court.
6. Sri.T.V.Vinu, learned Central Government Counsel,
appearing for the petitioners contend that there is no rationale
behind the orders passed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. The Tribunal erred egregiously in
allowing the Original Application, especially when the present
notification, Annexure-A5, has been issued not on the basis of
2018 Rules, whereas it was issued on the basis of 2021 Rules.
OP (CAT) NO. 62 OF 2024
He would further contend that 2018 Recruitment Rules were
amended on 5.3.2020 and later only Annexure-A5 notification
was issued. Annexure-A1 notification dated 4.10.2021 though
challenged before the Tribunal was not upheld by the Tribunal,
whereas it set aside a notification which was not in issue at all
before the Tribunal. He would further contend that the
discrimination as found by the Tribunal in terms of Article 16 of
the Constitution of India was misplaced and the element of
discrimination alleged on the basis of language was not a point
to be agitated by the applicant since the same is not provided
under Article 16 of the Constitution of India. He further pointed
out that it was his specific intention that the knowledge of local
language of the concerned State/Union Territory, that the
Department introduced the said restriction in Annexure-A5
notification. Since the selection process is for a particular
zone/State, it cannot be said that the appointment is on All
India Basis, therefore, the restriction imposed was reasonable
and was not open for judicial scrutiny at the hands of the
Tribunal.
OP (CAT) NO. 62 OF 2024
7. On the other hand, Sri.Sajith Kumar, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent/applicant would contend that the
Tribunal was justified in interfering with the restrictive clauses
in the impugned notification and the Rules. According to him,
the Rules are discriminatory since a candidate, who had studied
Malayalam up to 9th Standard and for some reason had not
chosen to continue with the subject in the 10 th Standard and is
also locally conversant with the language, is not allowed to
participate in the examination because of the restrictive clause
would be arbitrary. Though the power of the Union of India to
prescribe qualification or restrict the appointment to a
particular class is not disputed by Sri.Sajith Kumar, it is his
specific case that such restriction has to find some rationale in
order to pass the test of reasonableness.
8. We have considered the rival submissions raised
across the bar.
9. A perusal of the order impugned reveals that the
Tribunal had considered the principles laid down by the
Supreme Court in V.N.Sunanda Reddy & Ors. v. State of
OP (CAT) NO. 62 OF 2024
Andhra Pradesh & Ors. [AIR 1995 SC 914]. We are afraid
that the reliance placed by the Tribunal on the aforesaid
judgment was completely misplaced. The Tribunal misdirected
itself to the entire issue at large. The facts of the case in
V.N.Sunanda Reddy (supra) was entirely different and had no
relevance to the facts in the present case. In V.N.Sunanda
Reddy (supra), the Supreme Court was considering a case
where weightage was given in a selection to a post to those
persons who had studied in Telugu Medium school. On an
analysis of the various provisions of the Constitution of India,
the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the said
weightage of giving additional marks to persons who had
passed in Telugu Medium does not stand the test of Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution of India and accordingly, had
declared the said weightage as invalid.
10. On an analysis of the law laid by the Supreme Court,
we fail to see as to how the Central Administrative Tribunal
could have applied the principles laid down in the above
judgment to the case on hand. A close reading of the order
OP (CAT) NO. 62 OF 2024
impugned would show that the Tribunal held in the absence of
any satisfactory material to satisfy that there were valid
reasons for introducing such clause in the present Rules and
the fact that the anterior and posterior Recruitment Rules did
not contain such Rules clearly shows that the provisions were
arbitrarily introduced and not supported by any justifiable
reasons. We do not subscribe to the said finding, especially in
view of the fact that the restriction which is stated to have been
caused as per Annexure-A1 notification and Annexure-A5 Rules,
does stand the test of Article 16 of the Constitution of India.
Therefore, the discrimination based on the language cannot be
a ground to test the validity of a Recruitment Rules.
11. Still further, it is pertinent to note that Annexure-A5
Recruitment Rules though challenged was not interfered with.
What was interfered with was the posterior rules, namely
Recruitment Rules of 2018 and the notification issued on this
behalf. The notification which was interfered by the Tribunal
was not applicable to the case of the applicant, since she
admittedly did not apply pursuant to such notification.
OP (CAT) NO. 62 OF 2024
12. Even assuming for a moment that the reasoning
adopted by the Tribunal was a plausible one, even then, we are
not persuaded to hold that merely because such restriction was
not contained in the anterior and posterior Rules, the
Recruitment Rules could be challenged on the ground of
inequality under Article 16 of the Constitution of India.
13. It is advantageous to point out that in the revised
Recruitment Rules, which was issued on 30.8.2023, there is a
separate prescription by which the person who does not posses
the knowledge of a local language had applied for appointment,
would be required to pass a test in the local language to be
conducted in the manner as decided by the Postal circle
concerned and passing of such local language test shall be a
pre-condition for completion of probation. We have referred to
the aforesaid Rules only to drive home the point that the
requirement of knowledge of local language was always in the
mind of the petitioners, either expressly under the Recruitment
Rules, which would disable the candidate from applying or
though not expressly provided under the Recruitment Rules,
OP (CAT) NO. 62 OF 2024
which would enable such candidate to apply, such candidates
are required to pass test in the local language as a pre-
condition for passing their probation. Therefore, the
requirement of having a knowledge in the local language was
always in minds of the petitioners/respondents, insofar as
selection to the post of GDS-MD was concerned.
14. Having analysed the legal position as above, we
would now come to the specific qualification of the applicant as
could be seen from a reading of the impugned order. It is
pertinent to note that the Tribunal had not called for the
application and also the decision which made the minds of the
authorities from rejecting the application of the applicant. Be
that as it may, from the indisputed facts as could be seen from
the order impugned, it is clear that the applicant had studied
Malayalam only up to 9th standard and whereas she had opted
for Sanskrit for the 10th Standard thereby making her ineligible
for applying to the post pursuant to Annexure-A1 notification.
Therefore, we are clear in mind that the applicant was not
eligible for applying to the post and accordingly, the Tribunal
OP (CAT) NO. 62 OF 2024
ought not to have granted the interim order allowing the
candidate to appear provisionally for the examination.
The result of the above discussion leads to a conclusion
that the petitioners are entitled to succeed. Accordingly, the
Original Petition is allowed. Ext.P3 order dated 16.10.2023 in
O.A.No.590/2021 of the Central Administrative Tribunal is set
aside. The restriction placed by this Court in its interim order
dated 5.4.2024 is lifted. The Original Application would stand
accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
AMIT RAWAL
JUDGE
Sd/-
EASWARAN S.
JUDGE
jg
The following corrections are made in the judgement dated
31/05/2024 in OP(CAT) 62/2024, as per the order dated
07/08/2024 in IA 3/2024 in OP(CAT) 62/2024.
i. The words and phrases in Para 1 at Page 1 of the
judgment, which reads:-
"The application was filed by the applicant who was an
aspirant to the post of Gramin Dak Sevak-Mail Deliverer (GDS-
MD). By Annexure-A1 notification dated 4.10.2021, applications
were invited by the petitioners for selection to the post of
Gramin Dak Sevak. The applicant, who was working as a Postman
OP (CAT) NO. 62 OF 2024
at Puthuppally SO under Kayamkulam Sub Division and who joined
service on 15.5.2015 as per appointment memo dated 24.11.2015,
had applied for the post." stands corrected as,
"The application was filed by the applicant who was an
aspirant to the post of Postman. By Annexure-A1 notification
dated 4.10.2021, applications were invited by the petitioners
for selection to the post of Postman and Mail Guard. The
applicant, who was working as Gramin Dak Sevak-Mail Deliverer
(GSD-MD), later as Assistant Branch Postmaster (ABPM), at
Njakkanal P.O. and who joined service on 15.5.2015 as per
appointment memo dated 24.11.2015, had applied for the post".
ii. The word "GDS-MD" appearing in the last line of Para
13 at Page 11 of the judgment, which reads:-
"...Therefore, the requirement of having a knowledge in the
local language was always in minds of the
petitioners/respondents, insofar as selection to the post of
GDS-MD was concerned.", stands corrected as "Postman".
Sd/-
JOINT REGISTRAR
OP (CAT) NO. 62 OF 2024
APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 62/2024
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO. RECTT/12-
2/2021 DATED 04.10.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
Annexure A5 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECRUITMENT RULES TO THE POST
OF POSTMAN ISSUED AS PER GSR 899E DATED
20.09.2018 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Annexure A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPOINTMENT MEMO NO.
GDSMD-1/NJAKKANAL PO DATED 24.11.2015 ISSUED BY
THE INSPECTOR OF POSTS, KAYAMKULAM SUB DIVISION
Annexure A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE SECONDARY SCHOOL LEAVING
CERTIFICATE OF THE APPLICANT DATED 08/05/2009
ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
Annexure A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE GRADUATION CERTIFICATE NO.
25010602/11123025 ISSUED ON 27.02.2016 BY THE
VICE CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA
Annexure A6 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. GD-GR/1/2021-ACUM-
CNH-428 DATED 04.10.2021 ISSUED FROM THE O/O.
THE COMMISSIONER FOR LINGUISTIC MINORITIES IN
INDIA
Annexure R1 TRUE COPY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF POSTS POSTMAN AND
MAIL GUARD (GROUP 'C' POST) RECRUITMENT
(AMENDMENT) RULES, 2020 DATED 05.03.2020
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION DATED
01.11.2021 IN O.A. NO. 180/00590/2021 FILED
BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
ERNAKULAM BENCH BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED
07.02.2022 IN O.A. NO. 180/00590/2021, FILED
BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
ERNAKULAM BENCH BY THE RESPONDENTS HEREIN
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.10.2023 IN
O.A. NO. 180/00590/2021, ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. 09-03/2017-SPB-
I, DATED 04.12.2017, OF THE DIRECTOR (SPN),
DEPARTMENT OF POSTS ALONG WITH THE FINAL REPORT
THE COMMITTEE FOR REVIEWING THE RECRUITMENT
RULES OF MULTI-TASKING STAFF, POSTMAN, MAIL
GUARD, POSTAL ASSISTANT AND SORTING ASSISTANT
