Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Aswanth Chandran vs Department Of Posts on 19 December, 2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
O.A.No.180/00121/2023
Friday, this the 19th day of December, 2025
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K. HARIPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Mrs.V.RAMA MATHEW, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Aswanth Chandran, Aged 30, S/o. Chandran,
Dak Sevak Mailman, SRO Vadakara, Kozhikode,
RMS CT Division - 673 032, Residing at Anjali House,
Chorode Post, Vadakara, Kozhikode - 673 106.
- Applicant
[By Advocate: Mr. Vishnu S Chempazhanthiyil]
Versus
1. The Assistant Director (Estt. & Rectt.), Office of the Chief Postmaster
General, Kerala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 033.
2. The Chief Postmaster General, Kerala Circle,
Thiruvananthapuram - 695 033.
3. Union of India, Represented by the Secretary & Director General,
Department of Posts, Dak Bhavan, New Delhi-110001.
4. Neethu.M.Т., Postman, Perambra S.O., Vadakara Division,
Kozhikode-673 525.
-Respondents
[By Advocate : Mr. E.N.Hari Menon, ACGSC]
The application having been heard on 18.12.2025, the Tribunal on
19.12.2025 delivered the following order:
Deepa S 2025.12.19 15:40:05+05'30'
O.A.No.121/2023 2
ORDER
Justice K.Haripal, Judicial Member Applicant, while working as Dak Sevak Mailman in SRO Vadakara, applied for the post of Postman/Mail Guard and MTS for the vacancy year 2022 invited through Annexure-A1 notification dated 15.07.2022. He belongs to OBC category.
2. It is evident from Annexure-A1 that the candidates will have to undergo a competitive examination, which was held on 04.09.2022. The candidates who qualified in Papers-I, II and III were admitted to Data Entry Skill Test, DEST, held on 03.11.2022.
3. It is also the common case that the criteria for selection to the post of MTS is mainly based on performance in Paper-I and combined performance in Papers-I and II will be considered to the post of Postman/Mail Guard.
4. Candidates had to undergo examination involving multiple choice questions in Papers-I, II and III by darkening one of the four bubbles against each question in the OMR sheet provided to them. They had to darken the bubbles only in terms of the instructions given to them. The original of the OMR sheet will be submitted and the carbon copy can be retained by the Deepa S 2025.12.19 15:40:05+05'30' O.A.No.121/2023 3 candidates. After completion of the test, answer keys were published. Referring to the Annexure-A3 final answer key and carbon copy of the OMR, which was retained by the applicant, he submits that he should have been awarded 126 marks, but was granted only 124 marks and two candidates in OBC community who secured 124 marks were selected and appointed above him. Feeling that injustice has been showed to him he gave Annexure-A7 representation. His grievance is that candidates who secured lesser marks than him were preferred and the higher marks secured by him have been ignored. So, he has approached this Tribunal to set aside Annexure-A6 results to the extent he stands excluded and to direct the respondents to consider him for appointment in preference to the two other OBC candidates, who got lesser marks, after scrutinizing his OMR answer sheet.
5. The grievance of the applicant is that despite he has raised specific contentions in Annexure-A7 his grievance has not been redressed. He had secured 126 marks in the competitive examination and also qualified in the DEST. Therefore, appointing two OBC candidates, who secured lesser marks than him is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
6. The respondents have disputed the claim that the applicant had Deepa S 2025.12.19 15:40:05+05'30' O.A.No.121/2023 4 secured 126 marks in the competitive examination conducted through OMR test. According to them, he had secured only 124 marks. Evaluation was done through the software. OMR sheet submitted by the applicant was again verified and it came out that he had secured only 124 marks. Thus, there were three candidates belonging to OBC category secured same 124 marks and the two candidates who were elders to the applicant were appointed. According to them, Sri.Sarath Kumar and Smt.Neethu M.T., two other OBC candidates were born on 05.08.1991 and 31.05.1992, whereas the applicant was born on 07.12.1992. Since all of them had secured 124 marks, the said Sri.Sarath Kumar and Smt.Neethu were selected and appointed.
7. It is also submitted that the results of declared vacancies and unfilled promotion quota vacancies of Postman/Mail Guard for the year 2022 were published on 27.03.2023. One vacancy in unfilled promotion quota vacancies (seniority-cum-fitness quota vacancies) of Postman under UR category was added to GDS examination quota and Sri.Sarathkumar who earlier got selected under OBC category was adjusted against the said UR vacancy based on his own merit and thus a resultant vacancy arose in OBC quota. The applicant has been selected under OBC quota vacancy as Postman in Vadakara division and has since been appointed with effect from Deepa S 2025.12.19 15:40:05+05'30' O.A.No.121/2023 5 31.03.2023. Thus, according to the respondents, the OA has become infructuous.
8. We heard Sri. Vishnu S Chempazhanthiyil, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri. Hari Menon, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents.
9. Since the correctness of the marks awarded to the applicant in the OMR sheet vis a vis the answer keys was raised, we directed the respondents to produce the OMR sheet of the applicant, which was produced in a sealed cover. We have opened the same and perused in open Court.
10. Though the applicant has since been selected and appointed as a Postman in the vacancy that arose subsequently, still since the question raised by the applicant has impact on the seniority of the applicant and two other OBC candidates, we have to decide the rival contentions. As stated earlier, the clear case of the applicant is that he had secured 126 marks in the competitive examination, whereas according to the respondents, he secured only 124 marks. After perusing the OMR sheet furnished by the applicant, the arguments raised by the respondents will have to be sustained.
11. The candidates were given clear instructions on the method of marking of answers. Four probable answers have been given against each Deepa S 2025.12.19 15:40:05+05'30' O.A.No.121/2023 6 question and the candidate will have to darken one of the four bubbles against each question. Correct method of marking answers is given with the help of pictorial illustrations. From Annexure-R1(2) it is clear that the candidate is expected to darken only one of the bubbles given against each question. Such bubble should be fully darkened. Any partial darkening is treated as wrong method. It is shown that even a feeble tick mark given in a bubble will be treated as wrong answer. It has been specifically instructed that incorrect/invalid marking will be the sole responsibility of the candidate. Further, answer sheets are processed by electronic means, which recognises bubbles/circles only.
12. Respondents have stated that they have informed the applicant that the answer sheets were valued mechanically and manual valuation of OMR sheets cannot be done.
13. We have perused the OMR answer sheets furnished by the applicant bearing in mind the above standing instructions. We have noticed that against question No.19 in Paper-I answer C, which is the correct answer, has been appropriately darkened. At the same time, a thick stroke can be seen in bubble B. As we stated earlier, even a feeble tick mark would be taken by the system as an attempt to answer the question. In that way, when the Deepa S 2025.12.19 15:40:05+05'30' O.A.No.121/2023 7 electronic evaluation was done, the system has rejected the answer against question No.19 in Paper-I as an attempt to give two answers against a single question. So the marks awarded as 124 to the applicant cannot be faulted. Thus his claim that he was entitled to get 126 marks cannot be upheld.
We find that the respondents have done the selection correctly and the contentions raised by the applicant cannot be upheld. The Original Application is dismissed. No costs.
(Dated, this the 19th day of December, 2025)
V.RAMA MATHEW JUSTICE K.HARIPAL
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
ds
Deepa S 2025.12.19 15:40:05+05'30'
O.A.No.121/2023 8
List of Annexures
Annexure A6: True copy of the communication No.Rectt/12-2/2022(CON)
dated 28.12.2022 issued by the 1t respondent (relevant portion).
Annexure A1: True copy of the notification No.Rectt/12-2/2022 dated 15.7.2022 issued by the 1" respondent (relevant portion). Annexure A2: True copy of the communication No.Rectt/12-2/2022 dated 2.9.2022 issued by the 1" respondent.
Annexure A3: True copy of the notice No.Rectt/12-2/2022(CON) dated 6.10.2022 issued by the 1 respondent.
Annexure A4: True copy of the carbon copy/candidate's copy of the OMR Sheet of the applicant.
Annexure A5: Typed version of Annexure A4 OMR Answer sheet of the applicant prepared by the applicant.
Annexure A7: True copy of the representation dated 9.1.2023 to the 2nd respondent.
Annexure A8: True copy of the request dated 12.1.2023 to the CPIO, O/o Chief Postmaster General, Kerala Circle. Annexure A9: True copy of the communication No.Rectt/RTI/DA-1/2023 dated 16.2.2023 issued by the 1st respondent.
Annexure A10: True copy of the communication No. Rectt/12-2/2022(CON) dated 3.11.2022 issued by the 1st respondent.
Annexure MA1: True copy of the answer sheet supplied under RTI Act to the applicant.
Annexure R1 True copy of "INSTRUCTIONS FOR MARKING ANSWERS"
printed on the reverse of the OMR sheet for information of the candidates Deepa S 2025.12.19 15:40:05+05'30' O.A.No.121/2023 9 Annexure R2: True copy of letter No. 04-08/2019-SPN-I dated 11.12.2020 Annexure R3 True copy of letter No. 12-2/2022 dated 13.03.2023 ************* Deepa S 2025.12.19 15:40:05+05'30'