Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Rajalakshmi R vs Union Of India on 15 May, 2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
ERNAKULAM BENCH
Original Application No. 180/00756/2014
Monday, this the 15th day of May, 2017
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. U. Sarathchandran, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Mr. E.K. Bharat Bhushan, Administrative Member
Rajalakshmi R., aged 29 years, W/o. Hareesh S. Varma,
Post Master Gr. I, Mala Post Office (Thrissur District),
Pin : 680 732, Permanent Address : No. GE-1, Sharon Shelters,
Beena Anchumana Road, Edappally PO, Cochin-682 024,
Ernakulam District. ... Applicant
(By Advocate : Mr. T.C. Govindaswamy)
Versus
1. Union of India, represented by the Secretary to the
Government of India & the Director General of Posts,
Department of Posts, Ministry of Communications & Information
Technology, Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Chief Post Master General, Kerala Circle,
Thiruvananthapuram - 695 033.
3. The Assistant Director (Rectt.), Office of the Chief Post Master
General, Kerala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 033.
4. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Irinjalakuda Postal Division,
Irinjalakuda - 680 121, Thrissur District. . . . Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. K.C. Muraleedharan, ACGSC)
This application having been heard on 22.03.2017, the Tribunal on
15.05.2017 delivered the following:
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. U. Sarathchandran, Judicial Member -
Applicant while working as Postman Grade-I at Mala Post Office has approached this Tribunal being aggrieved by the denial of her consideration for promotion to the post of Inspector of Posts (IP) against 66.66% Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) quota. She was working as Postal Assistant up to 7.4.2014. Though she had applied for the LDCE, respondent No. 4 issued Annexure A4 communication circulating the communication dated 3.6.2014 pertaining to the conducting of LDCE examination for the year 2014 for promotion to the cadre of IP in 66.66% quota. According to the applicant she is prejudiced by the stipulations made in the communication dated 3.6.2014 issued by respondent No. 1 prescribing the crucial date for age and service condition. The relevant portion of the aforesaid communication dated 3.6.2014 (Annexure A4/4) reads:
'5. Crucial date for Age & Service condition - As per the revised Recruitment Rules to the care of IP, the cut off date for checking the minimum qualifying service is as on 1 st January of the year to which vacancies pertain to (i.e. 1.1.2014). Further as per Rule 279/1 of P&T Manual Volume IV, the cut-off date for assessing the age eligibility to appear in IP Examination is 30 th June of year preceding the date of conducting the examination. Since the examination is proposed to be held on 20 th and 21st September, 2014. The crucial date for this Examination is fixed as on 30th June, 2014.'
2.According to the applicant fixing of cut-off date for assessing the age and eligibility for the IP examination having been fixed as 30 th June, 2014 she has been prejudiced because as per the Recruitment Rules the cut-off date for checking the minimum qualifying service is as on 1 st January of the year to which the vacancies pertain to (i.e. 1.1.2014). As she has not received any hall ticket the applicant has approached this Tribunal seeking the relief as under:
'(i) Declare that the applicant is entitled to be considered for promotion as Inspector Posts against 66.66% LDCE quota notified in A4 and direct the respondents accordingly;
(ii) Direct the respondents to consider the applicant for promotion to the post of Inspector Posts against 66.66% LDCE quota vacancies notified in terms of A4 and direct further to grant all the consequential benefits arising therefrom;
(iii) Award costs and incidental thereto;
(iv) Pass such other orders or directions as deemed just and fit by this Hon'ble Tribunal.'
3. Vide order dated 14.11.2014 this Tribunal had directed respondents to permit the applicant to take part in the examination on provisional basis and to keep her result in a sealed cover. It was further made clear that the aforesaid procedure permitted by this Tribunal would be subject to the result of the examination.
4. Respondents filed reply statement opposing the OA and contending that the applicant was not working as Postal Assistant as on the date of notification of the Inspector of Posts examination or on the date of submission for appearing in the examination.
5. A rejoinder was filed by the applicant refuting the contentions of the respondents.
6. When the case came up for final hearing, the result of the IP examination in which the applicant was permitted to take part was produced before us in a sealed cover. The sealed cover was opened in the open court.
As per the examination result she has scored total marks of 816 and is qualified provisionally.
7. The learned Central Government counsel submitted that the last selected candidate for the post of IPO in the examination held on 22 nd & 23rd November, 2014 had secured 940 marks. Obviously, the marks scored by the applicant is much below the marks secured by the last selected candidate. Therefore, it appears to us that no purpose would be served if this case is proceeded further. Accordingly the OA is disposed of as it has become infructuous. Parties shall suffer their own costs.
(E.K. BHARAT BHUSHAN) (U. SARATHCHANDRAN) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ''SA''