Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Unknown vs Union Of India Through Secretary on 11 August, 2011
RESERVED CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH ALLAHABAD ***** (THIS THE 11th OF August 2011) Honble Mr. S.N. Shukla, Member (A) Honble Mr. A.K. Bhardwaj, Member (J) Original Application No.383 of 2008. (U/S 19, Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985) Aditiya Prasad Tripathi S/o Sri Ram Chandra Tripathi, aged about 32 years, R/o Village & Post Beruwa (Chaial), District Kaushambi. Applicant Versus 1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Communication, Sansad Marg, Govt. of India, New Delhi. 2. Chief Post Master General, U.P. Circle, Lucknow. 3. Post Master General, Allahabad Region, Allahabad. 4. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, City Division, Civil Lines, Allahabad. 5. Hari Mohan S/o Ram Raj, resident of Village & Post Charawa District Kaushambi and working as GDS BPM Beruwa under Account Office Charawa, District Kaushambi. Respondents Present for Applicant : Shri O.P. Gupta Present for Respondents : Shri H. Singh O R D E R
Delivered by Honble Mr. A.K. Bhardwaj, Member (J) The Applicant Aditiya Prasad Tripathi has filed the present Original Application assailing the order of appointment of respondent No. 5 (Hari Mohan) passed by respondent NO. 2 and seeking direction against the respondents to consider and appoint him as G.D.S BPM Beruwa (Chaial) with immediate effect.
2. The contention of the applicant is that he was better candidate and his marks in matriculation (High School Examination) were higher than the selected candidates. A perusal of Department of Posts, Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2001 reveals that the minimum age limit for employment as E.D. agent is 18 and maximum age up to which an E.D. can be retained in service is 65 years. The educational qualification for E.D.B.P.M (G.D.S. B.P.M) is matriculation or equivalent examination. It is true that the selection should be based on marks secured in said examination. However, in para 6 of D.G. P. & T letter No. 43/84-80-Pen., dated 30.1.1981 and corrigendum dated the 29th March, 1981, D.G., Posts Letter NO. 41-301/87-PE-II (ED & Trg.) dated the 6th June, 1988 and NO. 17-366/91- ED & Trg., dated the 12th March, 1991, it is specifically provided that in making recruitment to the post of G.D.S. B.P.M, preference has to be given to the candidate hailing from weaker sections of the societies such as Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes candidates. In the present case, admittedly respondent NO. 5 who has been appointed as G.D.S. B.P.M belong to S.C. category, while the applicant belongs to General category. Amongst S.C. candidates respondent NO. 5 had secured highest marks. The detail of marks obtained by candidates from aforementioned category in High School examination read as under:-
Sl. NO.
Name Marks in High School %age
1.
Hari Mohan 354/600 59%
2. Hira Lal 261/500 52.2%
3. Ram Sukh 256/500 51.2%
4. Chhote Lal Bhartiya 238/500 47.6%
5. Lokesh Kumar Diwakar 283/600 47.1%
6. Ram Asre 230/500 46%
7. Vijai Shankar Bartiya 259/600 43.1%
8. Anant Kumar 257/600 42.8%
9. Girish Chandra 214/500 42.8% Thus the selection made by the respondents to the post of G.D.S, B.P.M is on the basis of marks secured in matriculation or equivalent examination. The position mentioned in D.G. P. & T letter No. 43/84-80-Pen., dated 30.1.1981 (supra) i.e. the preference in making appointment as G.D.S B.P.M has to be given to candidates from Scheduled Caste was also indicated in notification dated 17.4.2007. Said notification reads as under:-
Hkkjrh; Mkd foHkkx dk;kZy;% izoj v/kh{kd Mkd?kj bykgkckn e.My bykgkckn lsok es] lsok;kstu vf/kdkjh lsok ;kstu dk;kZy;
bykgkckn i=kad % ch &3@cs:vk@06&07 bykgkckn fnukad 17-04-07 fok;% xzkeh.k Mkd lsod kk[kk Mkdiky cs:vk ys[kk dk;kZy; pjok dkSkkEch bykgkckn ds in ij fu;qfDr ds lEcU/k esa egksn;
ekuuh; lh , Vh bykgkckn vks , la[;k 1073 osdVjey flag cuke Hkkjr la?k esa fu.kZ; fnukad 23-5-2006 ds vuqikyu esa bl dk;kZy; ds lela[;d i= fnukad 20-10-2006 }kjk vfrfjDr foHkkxh; kk[kk Mkd?kj cs:vk ys[kkUrxZr pjok dkSkkEch bykgkckn esa xzkeh.k Mkd lsod kk[kk Mkdiky ds in gsrq vkosnu i= ekaxs x;s Fks ijUrq vkids ;gk ls dksbZ lwph ugha izkIr gqbZ FkhA bl foKkiu esa ;g vafdr djuk NwV x;k Fkk fd fu;qfDr ds le; vuqlwfpr tkfr ds vH;fFkZ;ksa dh ojh;rk nh tk;sxh vr% foKkiu iqu% fd;k tk jgk gSA vr% in ij HkRrk :Ik;k 1280 dsoy ekfld gSA mDr in ij fu;qfDr gsrq lkekU; o vuqlwfpr tkfr ds ik= vH;fFkZ;ksa ls vkosnu i= vkeaf=r fd, tkrs gSA ;g in fdlh ds fy, vkjf{kr ugh gS] ysfdu fu;qfDr ds le; vuqlwfpr tkfr ds vH;fFkZ;ksa dks ojh;rk nh tk;sxhA vkosnu i= dsoy iathd`r Mkd@LihM iksLV }kjk Lohdkj fd, tk;sxaA vkosnu i= bl dk;kZy; esa izkIr gksus dh fu/kkZfjr vfUre frfFk 16-05-97 gSA vH;FkhZ viuk vkosnu i= bl izdkj izsfkr djs fd mudk vkosnu i= bl dk;kZy; esa fu/kkZfjr vfUre frfFk rd izkIr gks tk,A fu/kkZfjr vfUre frfFk ds Ikpkr izkIr vkosnu i=ksa ij dksbZ fopkj ugh fd;k tk;sxkA vr% in ij fu;qfDr gsrq lsok;kstu dk;kZy; bykgkckn ls mi;qDr vH;fFkZ;ks dh lwph dh ekax Hkh dh xbZ gSA fu/kkZfjr vfUre frfFk ds vUnj lh/ks izkIr vkosnu i=ks ij Hkh leqfpr fopkj fd;k tk;sxkA vkosnu i= dk izk:Ik lkFk esa layXu gSA bles mfYyf[kr lHkh izek.k i=ksa rFkk fk{kk lEcU/kh izek.k i=ks dks LogLrk{kfjr o izekf.kr izfr;ka layXu djuk vfuok;Z gSA ;g Hkh tkudkjh esa ykuk vko;d gS fd p;fur vH;FkhZ }kjk nh xbZ lwpuk vFkok izek.k i=@vfHkys[k dHkh Hkh vlR; ik, tkus ij fcuk dkj.k crk;s uksfVl fn, bls ukSdjh ls vyx fd;k tk ldrk gSA vkosnu i= ds izk:Ik rFkk fyQkQk ds mij xzkeh.k Mkd lsod kk[kk Mkdiky cs:vk dkSkkEch bykgkckn in ds fy, vo; fy[ksA viw.kZ vkosnu i=ksa Ikj fopkj ugh fd;k tk;sxkA mi;qZDr in ij fu;qfDr gsrq fuEufyf[kr vgZrk;s gS% fuokl fu;qfDr dh xbZ krZ ds :Ik esa ;g lqfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd ftl vH;FkhZ dk p;u gksxk og fu;qfDr ls igys kk[kk Mkd?kj ds xzke cs:vk esa viuk mi;qDr vkokl cuk ysa rFkk fu;qfDr ds ckn mls ogkW fuokl djuk gksxk vH;FkhZ dks kk[kk Mkd?kj j[kus ds fy, mi;qDr dejk miyC/k djkuk gksxkA ek= ,d NksVs dejs dh O;oLFkk Ik;kZir ugh ekuh tk;sxhA 2- vk;q% vH;FkhZ dh vk;q fnukad 16-05-07 dks 18 okZ rFkk 62 okZ ds chp gksuh pkfg,A 3- kSf{kd ;ksX;rk % vH;FkhZ dks gkbLdwy ;k led{k ijh{kk mRrh.kZ gksuk pkfg, 4- vk; o lEifRr%& vH;FkhZ dks vius uke ls vk; o vk; dk LorU= lzksr dk izek.k i= nsuk gksxkA uksV%& iwoZ foKfIr fnukad 20-10-06 ds dze es fu/kkZfjr vfUre frfFk ds vUnj lh/ks izkIr vkosnu i=ks ij Hkh fopkj fd;k tk;sxk vkSj ,sls vH;fFk;ks dks iqu% vkosnu djus dh vko;drk ugh gSA izoj v/kh{kd Mkd?kj bykgkckn e.My bykgkckn
3. Although in the Original Application, it is nowhere pleaded that respondent NO. 5 is an L.I.C agent. However in the supplementary rejoinder filed on behalf of the applicant, it is pleaded that applicant was L.I.C agent and in terms of general instruction issued from Department of Posts, letter No. 22-1/2003-GDS, dated 24th May 2004, L.I.C Agents was not eligible for appointment as G.D.S. B.P.M. Said letter read as under:-
(1-B) LIC Agents are not eligible to be appointed as G.D.Ss- Honble CAT Madras Bench quash the instructions contained in Directorate Letter NO. 22-1/2003-GDS, dated 12.05.2003 regarding Gramin Dak Sevaks (GDSs) working as agents of insurance/financial companies. Honble CAT has inter alia observed that if the competent authority considered that after the commencement of RPLI business by the Department GDSs, they should not take up the LIC agency, it is open to the Department to make a condition that those who are LIC agents should not be in future appointed as GDSs unless they give up the agency, but that condition cannot be enforced in the case of GDSs who had already been recruited without any such condition. The matter was referred to the Ministry of Law, Branch Secretariat Chennai, but the case was not found fit to be challenged before High Court.
2. You are, therefore, requested to bring the contents of the above order to the notice of all concerned immediately for information/guidance. It is also requested that while making recruitment to the posts of GDSs, it should be specifically mentioned in the notification that LIC Agents are not eligible for the post unless they give up the agency. However, if any GDS is found to be diverting PLI/RPLI business, suitable disciplinary action should be taken again him.
In D.G. Posts letter No. 22-2/2003-DGS, dated 12th May 2003, it is further provided that Gramin Dak Sevaks should not canvass for any business of insurance agency other than RPLI business. Said letter is extracted below:-
(1-A) Gramin Dak Sevaks should not canvass for any business of insurance agency other than RPLI- All the Gramin Dak Sevaks (GDS) have now been authorized as Rural PLI agents for procurement of RPLI business and therefore, they should not canvass for any business of insurance agency, commission agency or of financial companies in the interest of the Department. If any GDS is still found canvassing for other such companies/agencies, whose services are parallel/similar to those provided by the Department, he should be proceeded against departmentally for violation of these instructions under the relevant rule of the GDS (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2001.
4. When a bald allegation is made by applicant that respondent NO.5 is an LIC agent and he was earning his livelihood in the capacity of LIC agent, no material evidence has been adduced on record.
5. In view of the aforementioned, particularly for the reason that the respondent NO. 5 belongs to S.C. category and was to be given preference for appointment as G.D.S. B.P.M., we do not find any infirmity in his appointment in the capacity as G.D.S. B.P.M and dismiss the O.A. However, respondents would verify the fact that whether respondent No. 5 is an L I.C agent. If allegation is found correct, suitable action should be taken in accordance with aforementioned instruction of Government of India. No costs.
Member (J) Member (A)
Manish/-
??
??
??
??
6