Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Prosenjit Das vs D/O India Post on 17 July, 2019
1- o.a. 1055.2015
cS- '
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
IDO HOI
KOLKATA BENCH, KOLKATA ip rvws i
t
No. O.A. 1055 of 2015 Date of order:
Present : Hon^ble Ms. Bidisha Banerjee, Judicial Member
Hon 1)16 Dr. Nandita Chatterjee, Administrative Member
Sri Prosenjit Das,
Son of Sri Pijush Kanti Das,
Working as Postal Assistant, MMS,
Asansol, Residing at 47, Sukantapally,
P.O. AgafpaMr"
■
\.
Si
r-
'■^4^The Sen^SFl^Snager,^^^
Mljil^MiotLOj^Sei^i^^
Kolkata - 700 010.
... Respondents
For the Applicant Mr. N. Roy, Counsel
For the Respondents None
*
if 2 o.a. 1055.2015
%&
ORDER
ji Per Dr, Nandita Chatteriee* Administrative Member:
5The applicant has approached this Tribunal in the second stage litigation praying for the following relief:-
S;
"(a) To issue direction upon the respondent to give the promotion for the post of PA and SA to the applicant forthwith.
(b) To issue further direction upon the respondent to give the applicant for the post PA/SA in. RMS Division with effect from 2011 where the LGO Examination conducted in the year 2010. According to the applicant's qualifying marks in the said examination which was held in 2010.
(c) To issue further ^ectiori^updh tHe^resppndent to give promotion for the post of PA and SA .where the applicant's qualifyihg^marks in the LGO Exam 201°-
(d) To issu£, furthendirStiqri^u^ri « rt. t ifIherrel^piicierfts ^ t<fgive promotion in the year 2001- for idie^pos^of'PA and SA cadre withf ad1 Consequential promotional benefit forthwid%% ^ ** ^
(e) fAnyndier^rder or ordersMSlPilfeearned Tribunal^ebm fit\nd proper.
(f) ^ To produce connect^^epartmeh^i^'ord at the time of healing."
2.
/. S' JiF\ i 1 #' HfearfeLd. Coun^elkfbmt^ apb'li^nt/^^fejnined pleadiSgs and \ / -V jCsX\»//yO% ■ docunfientspn record|'Non'e^pnesented^e^.esporia;(ents.
%
%
I JOS 'I bd.
3. | The applicaims^ubmis^S^^^s^SaeulatM througfP hi^ w \ ? y CouhseUs that, LGO ^inltion $ -- ^ # ! A.. -
conauqtecMjy the respgndetit afitholitibs%nm).Mj!2010 and that he had !w /11 i \y obtained qualifying^nark^S&hej said exam^^ion*a§^evidenced from the i results|^publi|H^'onk^^w2011. The respo^l^^^uthori^ties, however, did no^|:onsi'def^hds c %%* / /• f candidature ^ or^purportcd' .^grpundsf of non- % 3* availability %of, vaclanciesfl^^t^qther^c^njdifi'ates^m sirmlar position, however, had beeri^promofedato the po„s|^ofeF^8& S.^trid the applicant's case was not considered wilhloufeany^vaiid^feasons. Hence, aggrieved by the non-action of the respondent authorities, the applicant has moved the Tribunal.
4. The respondents, per contra, have argued that in the LGO examination, 2010, there were no vacancies of MMS, Kolkata and, accordingly, the candidates of MMS, Kolkata were not issued with any hall permit. The applicant, however, who was a T.S. Driver, MMS, Kolkata approached the Tribunal in O.A. No. 2109 of 2010 and the ■;
-:4' 3 o.a. 1055.2015 rp Tribunal vide its order dated 8; 10.2010 allowed the applicant to appear in the said exam. Although the applicant obtained qualifying marks in the said examination, on account of non-availability of vacancies in MMS Kolkata, the applicant was not promoted. Thereafter his case was referred to the headquarters wherefrom it was intimated that, as the syllabus of exam in PA/SA in MMS, RMS and Postal are different, the candidates have to be considered for the Division/Unit to which they */ r r belong. •M % The applicant, (Other Wing) Exam held^on 2jfev2'dl3 against departmental' vdbancy for the / year 201$ and^having beei S^es^ful^^^telsaid exam J^p^r&motion to r"^ the PAjicadi^was Alaaso^d is co^}«n%in the I *BT said Iposifesince 26fe20J.4^|li||e^&€c^drdthgrtQAhe respondents, the ^ V I ___ Jm p** | applicants praverydf^bMfe^^^^a^ltls^qualiiied candidate in | -fefta t;
.S iSSS! £
RM|/Po^l Wing fr^JO^'
«3|
Tf
I. % S
on of th^appgcant
? i
that ifertain othe&sEaSlM^^^&al li Hi _ JP oee-H; ^rai'q^^^pite being declared % surplus^ According. td^hSF respondents, thek'namesWdf. the candidates \ V '/ /' mentioned^in P,ara'4.12.. does%?not_lend^a suitable'comparison to the applicant as 'b^cai^fe&.those^^nl^ates'^ffia'appeaiffecl inrfhe 2007 LGO SI ^ examination and tnlt^the caSaJSate^i^nl^ni Pare^OQ had appeared in ^ the 2009 examination. The syllabus"'and recruitment rules, however, were changed w.e.f. LGO exam, 2010 in which the applicant had participated under the orders of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the applicant's claim does not deserve any consideration.
5. We find from the pleadings that the respondents have reiterated their views vide communication dated 8.11.2010 (Annexure A-5 to the O.A.), 27.8.2012 (Annexure A-13 to the O.A.), 5.8.2013 (Annexure A-12 kX 4 o.a. 1055.2015 to the O.A.) and 5.12.2014 (Annexure A-ll to the O.'A.), and have i consistently held that as there were no vacancies, the applicant could not have been engaged in MMS, Kolkata despite his participation and qualification in the same. The respondents have also clarified that the respondents have not issued any hall ticket, but the respondents had allowed him to appear in compliance to the directions of the Tribunal.
It is axiomatic that unless there is a vacancy, there is no question of filling it up. a,,.
The Honhle; Apex Corpn. V.
m
Parveen Kumarigf{&p&r6) 4 SCC 560, ruled that^^ioA^xistence of i 'V posts or^vacan^^ in^^^^^^ t: ae recruitm|nt%puld not |inJ^iaZ STO^w^ held thatia Ob'Qrt to beSted up by if ^ parficulSjmode of TOcruitmefflfMsimabr^iew ^Ls held rf&chah&er I 1 ** jr ftl I Ba& m§Uanagerm^MmikfWm\&kMer Hass (2Qp^) fiSCC "A UkStatS afjRalhsimn v. Hitendra / 99$ 6 SCC % / / i 574, the ^ourf^ruled^ that a^ineligible^pefion^carfriot cfaimJ:® continue in service merely because lie^ajlcllled^ito'an int^rview^under interim KV orders of the court ahcyvas provisionally'seleeted Hence, when the respondehtsv'nave repeatedly submitted that there are no available Vacancies in MMS, Kolkata, it is not within the scope of the Tribunal to direct creation of a vacancy to accommodate the applicant therein even if he had participated in the. LGO examination under orders of the Tribunal.
As the Tribunal's directions in O.A. No. 2109 of 2010 dated 8.10.2010 have not been produced before us, it could not be ascertained 5 o.a. 1055.2015 as to whether the matter of non-availability of vacancies was brought to the notice of the Tribunal at the material point of time when the Tribunal had issued the interim order.
6. Hence, we find that the applicant's plea has no merit and deserves to be dismissed. There will be no orders on costs.
(Dr. NandiMehaffi0ee) M^fu^ter/ee) Administmuvq^ii^wer Jumcial M&mber