Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Mobassir Hussain vs M/O Telecommun Ication on 22 April, 2026
1 (Reserved on 26.02.2026) Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad This the _22nd day of __April, 2026 HON'BLE MR. RAJNISH KUMAR RAI, MEMBER-J. HON'BLE MS. MANJU PANDEY, MEMBER-A. Original Application No. 756 of 2016 (U/S 19, Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985) Mobassir Husain aged about 29 years, son of Gulam Husain, R/o Village & Post Mirzapur, District Mirzapur.
........... Applicant.
By Advocate: Mr. Ashish Srivastava.
Versus
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Post & Telecommunication, Department of Post, New Delhi.
2. Postmaster General Allahabad Circle, Allahabad.
3. Superintendent of Post Offices, Mirzapur Division, District-Mirzapur.
........... Respondents.
By Advocate: Mr. Krishna Kumar Ojha.
Order By Hon'ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member (Judicial) The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant on 24.05.2016 under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking a direction to the respondents to consider the candidature of the applicant for the post of GDS Mail Packer along with other eligible candidates by taking into account the qualification of Munshi/Maulvi. The reliefs prayed for by the applicant are as under:-
"I. This Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the applicant for the GDS Mail Packer alongwith the other candidates in the with the qualification of Munshi/Maulvi in the Branch Post Office Vijaypur, Mirzapur.
Shakuntala Singh 2 II. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may be given in favour of the applicant.
III. Award the costs of the original application in favour of the applicant."
2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant, a resident of Village Vijaypur, District Mirzapur, possessing the qualification of Munshi/Maulvi from U.P. Madrasa Education Board (claimed to be equivalent to High School), applied for the post of GDS Mail Packer/BPM pursuant to the notification issued by the respondents in the year 2016. The applicant contends that he secured high marks and was otherwise eligible for appointment, however, his candidature was not considered on the ground that the said qualification was not treated as equivalent to High School for the purpose of the concerned recruitment. It is the case of the applicant that such qualification had earlier been recognized as equivalent and candidates possessing the same had been appointed in the department as well as in other divisions, and further that the DoPT guidelines also recognize such equivalence. Aggrieved by the denial of consideration despite eligibility and merit, the applicant has approached this Tribunal seeking a direction to the respondents to consider his candidature for appointment.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant possesses the qualification of Munshi/Maulvi from the U.P. Madrasa Education Board, which is duly recognized as equivalent to High School in terms of Government orders as well as DoPT Office Memorandum dated 23.02.2010, and therefore the applicant fully satisfies the prescribed educational qualification for the post in question. He further submitted that prior to the impugned action, the respondents themselves had been treating the said qualification as Shakuntala Singh 3 equivalent and had appointed several candidates possessing the same qualification in the GDS cadre, even in other divisions, and thus the action of the respondents in denying consideration to the applicant is arbitrary and discriminatory. It was also argued that the applicant has secured higher marks and is otherwise meritorious, yet his candidature has been rejected solely on an untenable ground, and therefore the respondents be directed to consider the case of the applicant for appointment in accordance with law.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the claim of the applicant is misconceived and not sustainable in law, as the recruitment in question was governed strictly by the terms of the notification, wherein the qualification of Munshi/Maulvi was not prescribed or recognized as equivalent to High School for the purpose of appointment in the GDS cadre. He further submitted that the respondents are bound by the conditions of the notification and cannot travel beyond the same, and therefore the applicant, not possessing the requisite prescribed qualification, is not entitled to any consideration for appointment. It was also contended that the applicant has no vested right to claim appointment merely on the basis of alleged equivalence, particularly when such equivalence is not provided in the recruitment notification.
5. In the counter affidavit filed on 20.01.2017, the respondents have stated that the recruitment process for the post of GDS Mail Packer at Vijaypur was initiated through a notification, however, the said process was subsequently withheld by the competent authority i.e. Secretary, Department of Posts, and therefore no applications were processed or merit list prepared. It has been specifically Shakuntala Singh 4 averred that the notification does not contain any provision treating Munshi/Maulvi as equivalent to High School, and only those candidates who possess High School qualification or equivalent from recognized Boards were to be considered. The respondents have further stated that since the entire recruitment process has been kept in abeyance and applications have not been opened, the claim of the applicant is premature and baseless, and he would be considered only if the recruitment process is resumed and if he fulfills the prescribed eligibility conditions.
6. It is noteworthy that despite the filing of the counter affidavit by the respondents on 20.01.2017, the applicant has not chosen to file any rejoinder affidavit to controvert the averments made therein.
7. We have considered the submissions advanced by Mr. Ashish Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, and Mr. Krishna Kumar Ojha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, and have perused the entire record placed before us.
8. On a careful consideration of the pleadings on record and the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, it is evident that the controversy in the present case pertains to the recognition and equivalence of the qualification of Munshi/Maulvi possessed by the applicant vis-à-vis the requirement of High School qualification prescribed under the recruitment notification dated 22.06.2016. While the respondents have taken a stand that such qualification was not recognized under the said notification, the material available on record necessitates examination in the light of Shakuntala Singh 5 the applicable policy governing equivalence of educational qualifications.
9. In this context, it would be apposite to refer to the Office Memorandum dated 23.02.2010 issued by the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT), which deals with recognition of certificates/qualifications issued by State Madarsa Education Boards for the purpose of employment under the Central Government. The relevant Office Memorandum is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"File No. 42012/13/2007- Estt. (D) Government of India Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions Department of Personnel & Training Establishment (D) Section New Delhi the 23 February, 2010 Office Memorandum Subject Recognition of Certificates/Qualifications issued by State Madarsa Education Boards for the purpose of employment under the Central Government.
The undersigned is directed to say that the Central Government has accepted the following recommendations relating to equivalence and the guiding principles that should be in place for grant of such equivalence to the various examinations conducted by the Madarsa Boards of the country with those of the main stream Boards of Secondary and Senior Secondary Education for the purpose of Higher Education as the case may be.
(i) The Madarsa seeking equivalence need to affiliate themselves with the corresponding State Madarsa Board.
(ii) In a state which has no functioning Madarsa Board the Madarsa existing in that state may affiliate themselves to the Madarsa Board of any other neighbouring state, so that the students enrolled in Madarsas do not face any difficulty in their attempt at horizontal and vertical mobility and employment.
(iii) The certificates/qualifications of the Madrasa Board which have been granted equivalence by the corresponding State Board of Education to that of their Secondary and Senior Secondary qualifications may be considered equivalent by the Central Board of Secondary Education(CBSE), Council of Boards of School Education in India(COBSE) and/or by any other School Examination Board, for the purpose of employment.
Shakuntala Singh 6 The Government of India, in consultation with Ministry of HRD have decided to recognize the certificates/qualifications issued by the following state Madarsa Education Boards for the purpose of employment under the Central Government.
S.No. Name of the Board Examination Conducted Equivalence
to Classes
1 Bihar State Wastania Fauquania VIII
Madarsa Education Maulvi X
Board Patna, Bihar. XII
2 West Bengal Board High Madarsa, Alim Fazil X
of Madarsa
Education, Kolkata, XII
West Bengal
3 Chhattisgarh Urdu Adib, Urdu Mahir, X
Madarsa Board, Urdu Moullim. High
Raipur, School Patrachar XII
Chhattisgarh. Pathyakram Adim Higher
Secondary Patrachar
Pathyakram
4 Madhya Pradesh Middle Urdu Adeeb, Urdu VIII
Madarsa Board, Mahir, Urdu Moullim,
Bhopal, MP Maulvi, Madhyamik Alim, X
Higher Secondary
XII
5 UP Madarsa Munshi, Moulvi X
Education Board,
Lucknow, UP Alim. XII
Sd/-
(A.K. Srivastava)
Under Secretary to the Government of India"
10. A perusal of the aforesaid Office Memorandum makes it evident that the qualifications granted by recognized Madarsa Boards, including the U.P. Madarsa Education Board, are to be considered for equivalence with the corresponding levels of mainstream education for the purpose of employment, subject to fulfillment of the prescribed conditions. In such circumstances, the mere non- mentioning of the qualification of Munshi/Maulvi in the recruitment notification dated 22.06.2016 cannot, by itself, be a valid ground to reject the candidature of the applicant without examining the issue of equivalence in the light of the said policy framework.
Shakuntala Singh 7
11. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the matter is remitted back to the respondents for fresh consideration. The respondents/competent authority are directed to reconsider the case of the applicant in the light of the Office Memorandum dated 23.02.2010 as well as the recruitment notification dated 22.06.2016, and to pass a reasoned and speaking order, strictly in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
12. With the aforesaid directions, the present Original Application stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
13. All pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(Manju Pandey) (Rajnish Kumar Rai)
Member (A) Member (J)
/Shakuntala/
Shakuntala Singh