Central Administrative Tribunal - Jodhpur
Om Prakash vs M/O Communications on 21 August, 2025
1
290/00146/2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR
Original Application No. 290/00146/2017
Pronounced on : 19.08.2025
Reserved on : 21.07.2025
CORAM
HON'BLE Mr JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE Dr AMIT SAHAI, MEMBER (A)
1. Om Prakash s/o Ram Narayan aged aboput 29 years,
resident of vill & post - Alai, Tehsil & district Nagaur
(Raj).
2. Dhara Singh s/o Rameshwar Lal aged about 19 years,
resident of vill & post-Mangalpura Teh-Kuchaman District
Nagaur ( Raj).
3. Ram Niwas s/o Bhanwer Lal, aged about 27 years, resident
of vill & post Makrana, Tehsil & District Nagaur (Raj).
4. Ugama Ram s/o Ramuram aged about 30 years, resident
of vill & post Makrana Tehsil & District Nagaur ( Raj).
5. Hem Raj s/o Dev Kishan aged about 21 years, resident of
vill & post Makrana Tehsil & District Nagaur (Raj).
6. Ramesh s/o Parsaram aged about 19 years, vill & post
Ranasar, Teh-Kuchaman Distt- Nagaur (Raj).
7. Richhpal Kala s/o Banshi Lal aged about 20 years resident
of vill & post Nimri Kala The-Degana District -Nagaur (Raj).
8. Jitendar s/o Babu Lal aged about 21 years resident of vill &
post-Nimi Jodha The- Ladnu District-Nagaur ( Raj).
9. Mool Singh s/o Nahar Singh aged about 28 years, resident
of vill & post Dholiya, The-Ladnu, District Nagaur( Raj).
2
290/00146/2017
10. Suresh s/o Sahdev aged about 27 years resident of vill & ,
post - Genana The- Ladnu District- Nagaur ( Raj).
11. Hameer Singh s/o Prahlad aged about 21 resident of vill &
post -Huddas, The- Ladnu District- Nagaur ( Raj),
12. Ram Kumar s/o Khiya Ram aged about 21 years, resident
of Dhingsari, The & District- Nagaur ( Raj).
13. Bhoma Ram s/o Mohan Ram aged bout 22 years resident
of Vill & post -Dhankoli, The-Didwana District- Nagaur
(Raj).
14. Sharda D/o Suresh aged about 22 years resident of Vill &
post-Dhankoli, The-Didwana District- Nagaur ( Raj).
15. Raju Ram s/o Jagdish aged about 18 years resident of vill
& post --Magrasar, The & District- Churu ( Raj).
16. Shrawan Saran s/o Panna Lal aged abnout 21 years -
resident of Vill & post- Ghandhi Basti Sujangarh District
Churu (Raj).
17. Dharma Ram Dhaka s/o Gopi Ram aged about 27 years
resident of Vill & post- Ghandhi Basti Sujangarh District
Churu (Raj).
18. Sang Singh s/o Fool Singh aged about 24 years resident
of vill & post -Kirtasar, The- Nokha District- Bikaner(Raj).
19. Bherv Singh s/o Punraj Singh aged about 26 years
resident of vill & post -Kirtasar, The- Nokha District-
Bikaner(Raj).
20. Moola Ram s/o Padma Ram aged bout 31 years resident-
of Vill & post- Rojiyanadi The- Baytu District- Barmer (
Raj).
21. Kapil Kumar s/o Shubh Karan Singh aged about 28 years
resident of vill & post-Mohanpura The & District-
Jhunjhunu ( Raj).
3
290/00146/2017
22. Kuldeep Kumar s/o Khayali Ram aged about 24 years vill
& post- Agothra The- Chirava District- Jhunjhunu (Raj).
23. Vinod Kumar s/o Jay Singh aged about 21 years resident
of Vill & post Gumansar, The- Chirava District-· Jhunjhunu
( aj).
24. Ankit Dhayal s/o Naresh Dhayal aged about 20 years
resident of Vill & post- Gadaniya The & District- Jhunjhunu
(Raj).
25. Vipul Dhayal S/o Rajesh Dhayal aged about 18 years
resident of vill & post - Gadaniya The & District- Jhunjhunu
(Raj)
26. Shrawan Singh s/o Bhagwan Singh aged about 20 years
resident of Vill & post- Bhajan garh Teh & District-Sikar
(Raj). Vipul Dhayal s/o Rajesh Dhayal aged abut 19 years
......Applicants
By Advocate : Mr Ajay Kumar Kaushik.
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary to the Govt of India,
Deptt of Posts, Ministry of Communications & IT Dak
Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-11000!.
2. Chief Post Master General, Rajasthan Circle, Jaipur.
302007.
3. Superintendent of Post Offices Nagaur, District Nagaur.
4. The Secretary to Govt. of India, Ministry of Human
Resource Development, Deptt. of Higher Education, Shastri
Bhawan, New Delhi
......Respondents
By Advocate : Mr K.S. Yadav.
4
290/00146/2017
ORDER
Per : Hon'ble Mr Justice Rameshwar Vyas Being aggrieved by non-acceptance of the online application form for the post of Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) pursuant to Notification No. RECTT/1-41/GDS/2017 dated 04.04.2017 (Annex. A/10) [hereinafter referred to as Notification of 2017], the applicants have preferred this original application jointly seeking direction against the respondents to treat educational qualification acquired by them as recognized and equivalent to 10th standard.
2. The facts necessary to adjudicate this OA are as under:-
2.1 In the year 2017, applications were invited for the post of GDS in the Rajasthan Circle vide Notification (Annex. A/10) dated 04.04.2017. As per eligibility criteria, a candidate should have passed 10th standard from approved state boards by the respective State Govt./Central Govt.
2.2 As per the case of the applicants, they passed high school examinations from the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Bharat, Gwalior recognized by the Government. It is the case of the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Bharat, Gwalior has been recognized by the State Government. In this regard, the applicants have relied upon Annex. A/2, which is alleged to be a copy of Chapter 14 of Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921. It is averred that in case of Degree/Diploma awarded by Boards and Universities in India incorporated by Act of Central or State Legislature in India, no formal orders recognizing such 5 290/00146/2017 Degree or Diploma need be issued by the Government. In this regard, the applicants submitted information obtained under RTI Act with regard to certificates issued by Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Bharat, Gwalior.
2.3 It is the grievance of the applicants that the educational qualification acquired by the applicants has not included the name of Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Bharat, Gwalior in the list of recognized Boards for some ill motive or extraneous reasons. Not mentioning the name of Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Bharat, Gwalior in the said list does not mean that the above Board is not recognized.
2.4 Challenging the action of the respondents in not including the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Bharat, Gwalior in the list of recognized educational institutions by the respondents, the applicants have preferred this joint application seeking direction against the respondents to allow their candidature by treating educational qualification as recognized and equivalent to 10th standard.
2.5 As per reply filed by the respondents, Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Bharat, Gwalior is not a valid Board and not recognized by the Madhya Pradesh State Government. As per revised eligibility criteria for the post of GDS circulated vide letter dated 14.01.2015, certificate of 10th standard conducted by any recognized board of school education in India is mandatory. The Dy. Secretary, School Education Department, Govt of M.P., Bhopal informed that the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Bharat, Gwalior is not authorized and valid.6
290/00146/2017 Contradicting the claim of the applicants, the respondents prayed to dismiss the OA.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
4. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicants have passed the secondary examination conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Bharat, Gwalior which is equivalent to 10th standard. They fulfil other eligibility criteria required for appointment to the post of GDS as per Notification of 2017. A number of persons who acquired educational qualification from the same Board have already been employed in central government service.
5. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicants' claim is based upon the certificate which is neither issued by the recognized Board of M.P. government has been included in the list of approved educational institutions as required under the Notification of 2017 inviting applications for the post of GDS. Therefore, the claim of the applicants to treat their educational qualification at par with the candidates issued certificate by the Boards listed in the Notification is baseless.
6. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and material available on record, it emerges that pursuant to Notification of 2017 (Annex. A/10), the candidates who have passed 10th standard from the approved Boards by State Govt. or Central Govt. were eligible to apply for the post of GDS. It is not in dispute that revised eligibility criteria dated 7 290/00146/2017 14.01.2015 (Annex. R/7) was fixed prior to the issuance of Notification of 2017. The applicants have failed to show that the certificate of 10th standard of Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Bharat, Gwalior has been recognized by the M.P. Government. Apart from this, according to the letter of office of District Education Officer, Gwalior (MP.) dated 13.04.2017 (Annex. R/5), the Board from where the applicants have obtained certificates has not been recognized by the M.P. Government.
Hence it remains not in dispute that the name of Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Bharat, Gwalior does not find place in the list of approved Boards issued by the M.P. Government. In absence of recognition granted to the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Bharat, Gwalior and without inclusion of this Board in the list of approved Boards by the respondent authority, the applicants cannot claim to treat them eligible to apply for the post of GDS. Such a claim is baseless. The applicants have failed to show that the Board which issued the certificate to them has been created under any Act. Furthermore, it is the domain of the respondents to fix the educational criteria as also the standard of the Board/Institution from which the candidates are required to obtain educational qualification for applying to the post of GDS. The applicants cannot seek direction against the respondents to treat their educational qualification as equivalent to 10th standard as per standard of the respondents. Such a prayer will amount to changing the eligibility criteria required under the recruitment 8 290/00146/2017 rules formulated by the respondents. Hence, we find no merit in the OA.
7. In view of the above, OA is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(Amit Sahai) (Rameshwar Vyas)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
ss
Digitally signed by SUDESH SHAKHI
SUDESH
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL, OU=JODHPUR BENCH, Phone=
a27c6e3b70871625348f2a3c0c55c745e5a539aa4870d b2699074ca1c35d078c, PostalCode=342006, S= Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= F709B6DE94E2153CCFD55F34387F3BB788E0FF850 SHAKHI A83262E2D1BB72EA7ADF651, CN=SUDESH SHAKHI Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.29 10:02:19+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0