Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
K.Soman Pillai vs Union Of India Represented By on 29 August, 2013
Central Administrative Tribunal
Ernakulam Bench
OA No.1203/2012
Thursday, this the 29th day of August, 2013.
CORAM
Hon'ble Dr.K.B.S.Rajan, Member (Judicial)
Hon'ble Mr.K.George Joseph, Member (Administrative)
K.Soman Pillai, age 52 years
S/o Late R.Kochappan Pillai
Postman, Thevalakara
Residing at Cheriyil Puthen Veedu,
Palackal, Thevalakara-690 524 Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr.V.Sajith Kumar)
Versus
1. Union of India represented by
Secretary to the Government
Department of Pos
lMinistry of Communication, Govt of India
New Delhi-110 001.
2. The Chief Postmaster General
Kerala Circle
Trivandrum-695 101
3. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices
Kollam Division
Kollam-691 001 Respondents
(By Advocate: Mrs.Jishamol Cleetus, ACGSC)
This application having been heard on 29th August, 2013, the
Tribunal on the same day delivered the following order:-
O R D E R
Hon'ble Dr.K.B.S.Rajan, Member (J) Advancement of the year of promotion to the post of Postman from 2009 to 2008 is the issue involved in this case. The applicant entered the services as GDS in 1988, and participated in the 2008 Postman Examination for which notification was issued in September, 2009 and examination, in November, 2009. Close to the heels of the said notification, in October, 2009, notification for the 2009 examination was issued and was followed by holding of the examination. The applicant secured 127.5 marks in the 2008 examination and 144 (first) in the 2009 examination. He was appointed against the 2009 vacancy in February, 2010. However, The Vigilance wing of the department finding certain irregularities in the selection process for the years 2008 and 2009, suggested for recasting of the select list in accordance with law. Simultaneously, certain individuals approached the Tribunal in OA No. 118/2012 challenging inclusion of ineligible individuals in the select list of 2009 and the same was allowed vide order dated 19-11-2012 at Annexure A-4. The ineligibles who had, however, been selected and promoted were issued with show cause notice, vide Annexure A-5 and their application in OA No. 409 of 2012 stood dismissed followed by dismissal of their O.P.(CAT) No. 4096 of 2012 in December, 2012. The case of the applicant is that after all the legal remedies were taken by various individuals there was no impediment for the respondents to re-arrange the promotion of candidates on the basis of their marks secured in 2008 examination, in which case, the applicant would have secured his position in the said 2008 examination itself. Accordingly, he had submitted a representation vide Annexure A-6. As there was no favourable response, the applicant has moved this Tribunal seeking the following reliefs:-
a) To direct the 3rd respondent to recast the select list to the post of postman for the year 2008 and to accommodate applicant against 2008 vacancy with all consequential benefits, including notional service and arrears of salary.
b) Grant such other reliefs as may be prayed for and as the Court may deem fit to grant, and
c) Grant the cost of this Original Application.
2. Respondents have fairly conceded that the applicant is entitled to be accommodated against the 2008 vacancy and have prayed for closure of the OA as infructuous since the respondents are ready to appoint the applicant as postman against the 2008 vacancy.
3. Accordingly, respondents are directed to fulfill their commitment as contained in their reply. This OA is thus, closed. No cost.
(K.George Joseph) (Dr.K.B.S.Rajan) Member (A) Member (J) aa.