Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Rakesh Kumar vs D/O Post on 23 August, 2024
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.166/2021
DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
(Reserved on: 09.08.2024)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. SURESH KUMAR BATRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MRS. RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI, MEMBER (A)
RAKESH KUMAR S/o Late Sh. Sadhu Ram, aged 42 years.
working as Postman (Group 'C), Pathankot MDG (Mukhya Dak
Ghar), R/6 11. No. 55/345 Siali Kullian, Pathankot-145001
(Punjab).
.... Applicant
(By Advocate: Sh. Jaswinder Singh)
Versus
1. Union of India, through its Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry
of Communications, Deptt. of Posts, Dak Bhawan, Sansand
Marg, New Delhi-110001 [B: [email protected]].
2. The Chief Postmaster General, Punjab Circle, Sandesh
Bhawan, Sector 17-E, Chandigarh-160017. [B: cpmg
[email protected]].
3. The Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Gurdaspur Division,
Gurdaspur-143521 [E [email protected]]
....Respondents
(By Advocate: Sh. Sanjay Goyal, Sr. CGSC).
2
ORDER
PER: RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI, MEMBER (A)
1. Present Original has been filed by the applicant seeking following reliefs:-
"i). quash and set aside the impugned order dt. 03.2.2020 (Annexure A-4), issued by respondent No.3/ Sr. Superintendent of POS Gurdaspur Dn;
ii). direct the respondents to implement order dt.
21.1.2021. Annexure A-3), issued by respondent No.3/ Sr. Superintendent of POS Gurdaspur Dn. vide which the result of examination has been declared, in which the applicant has been declared successful."
2. The facts, as pleaded by the applicant in the present O.A., are as follows:
a) The applicant joined the respondent Department as GDS on 01.1.2000 & subsequently promoted as Postman on
03.8.2015, on the basis of LDCE (Limited Departmental Competitive Examination). Presently, he is working as Postman in Pathankot MDG.
b) It has been submitted by the applicant that some vacancies in the Postal Assistant cadre are filled through the 'Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE), as per extant Rules of the respondent Deptt. MTS, Postman, Mail Guard & Despatch Rider are eligible to apply & compete for the posts of Postal Assistant/ Sorting Assistant through this exam. Respondent No. 1 notified holding of the LDCE, for 3 filling vacancies of Departmental Quota for the year 2020 (01.1.2020-31.12.2020) vide letter No.A-34012/05/2020- DE dated 04.11.2020 Model Notification for combined Departmental/Competitive examination for the vacancy year 2020 (ANNEXURE A-1).
c) Respondent no.2, notified holding of the said examination LDCE vide Notification No. Rectt/2-14/2020 dated 06.11.2020 and through this notification, applications were invited from the willing and eligible candidates in the prescribed format. This notification inter-alia contained dates for holding the exam, Division/ Category wise number of vacancies, Eligibility criteria, Pattern & Syllabus of Examination, Centres of examination etc. (ANNEXURE A-2).
d) The applicant duly applied for appearing in the said examination in time and appeared in the DEST (Data Entry Skill Test) held on 20.12.2020. Respondent No.3, declared the result of LDCE vide Memo No.B-1/7/LGO Exam (PM/MTSV2020 dt. 21.1.2021 and the applicant's name figured at Sl. No. 4 of the 'List of the candidates declared successful. It is shown in the Memo that the applicant got 41 Marks in Paper-I. This Memo also declares through the Table captioned-'Details of vacancies- that all the 5 vacancies including 1 vacancy of SC have been filled up 4 through this exam- LDCE (ANNEXURE A-3). Respondent no.3 cancelled the declared result vide letter Memo No. B- 1/7/LGO Exam (PM/MTS)/2020 dated 03.2.2021, without assigning any just & proper reason. The only reason mentioned in this Memo is- "In pursuance of Instructions contained in Circle Office Letter No. Rectt./2-14/2020 dated 03.2.2021, the result of LDCE declared vide this office memo dated 21.1.2021 is ordered to be cancelled with immediate effect" (Annexure A-4).
e) According to the applicant, the above action of the respondents is highly unjust, improper arbitrary & prejudicial to the applicant as it entails 'Civil Consequences' in as much it mars the career progression of the applicant, to which he is legitimately entitled as per the Policy of the respondent Department for filling up the posts of Postal Assistant/ Sorting Assistant which carry a better work content and a better salary and working conditions. Hence, the present OA.
3. The applicant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Railway construction Coy. Ltd. v Ajay Kumar [2003 SCC (L&S) 528] & State of U.P. & Ors v Renusagar Power Co. [AIR 1988 SC 1737]. Reliance is also placed on [E.P. Royappa v State of TN (1974) 4 SCC 3] and State of Bihar v PP Sharma [1992 Supp(1) SCC 260]. 5
4. The respondents have filed the reply submitting there that:-
i) The notification for Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) from Postman/Mail Guard, Despatch Rider and MTS for recruitment to the cadre of Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant in Postal Division/Units including Postal Stores Depot, RMS & MMS for Departmental Quota of vacancy for year 2020 (01.01.2020 to 31.12.2020) was notified by Respondent No 2 i.e. Chief Postmaster General Punjab Circle, Chandigarh vide letter No-Rectt./2-14/2020 dated 06.11.2020 which was further circulated by Respondent No.3 i.e. Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices Gurdaspur Division to all concerned vide Endst No-B-1/7/LGO Exam (PM/MTS)/2020 dated 10.11.2020.
Total 05 (five) vacancies were notified in respect of Gurdaspur Division. Category wise details of vacancies is as under:-
OC 04
SC 01
ST Nil
Total 05
ii) The applicant belongs to unreserved category and working
as Postman in Pathankot Sub Post Office fulfilling the requisite eligibility conditions applied for said examination. 6 He was allowed and appeared in the said LDCE held on 20.12.2020. After declared as a qualified candidate vide Circle Office Memo No-Rectt/Con/2-14/2020 dated 13.01.2021, the applicant was allowed to appear in the DEST held at WCTC GPO Chandigarh on 16.01.2021.
iii) Office of Respondent No 2 vide Circle Office letter Rectt./Con/2-14/2020 dated 20.01.2021 supplied Directorate (DE Section) letter No-A-34012/05-2019-DE dated 31.01.2020, software generated Evaluation sheets, DEST Sheets, Descriptive sheets along with other related material to Respondent No 3 for declaration of the result of above said LDCE on 21.01.2021 by 15:00 hrs. While preparing result, it was observed that candidate with Roll No- 27060313 (who secured 58 marks in Paper-1) was mentioned as "Failed" in computer generated evaluation sheet of Paper-Il due to the reason "Category not filled". Hence, the candidature of Roll No-27060313 was not considered while preparing result. Accordingly result was prepared on the basis of merit and declared vide SSPOS Gurdaspur Memo No- B-1/7/LGO Exam (PM/MTS)/2020 dated 21.01.2021. The applicant secured 41 marks and declared successful in the said examination. As per para 3 of Directorate (DE Section) letter No- A-34012/05-2019- 7 DE dated 31.01.2020, "No manual intervention is allowed for evaluation of OMR sheets. It has, therefore, been decided that OMR sheets in which the software have not awarded marks, cannot be evaluated under any circumstance. However, in other cases, where the software awarded marks, the Circle may go ahead taking due care"
(Annexure R-1). In the instant case, the candidate Shri Ashish Verma having Roll No- 27060313 was awarded 58 marks by the software but he was failed by the software giving reason "Category not filled". Since the candidate was awarded marks, his case was required to be considered as per Directorate instructions, but the said instructions were misinterpreted while preparing result. The matter came to notice after declaration of result and on receipt of representation from Sh. Ashish Verma Roll No.27060313 on 01.02.2021. After considering the said representation, Pathankot SO after careful examination of the instructions on the subject matter which were mis- interpreted earlier, the claim of Sh. Ashish Verma MTS Pathankot SO found justified and accordingly the result declared vide Memo No- B-1/7/LGO Exam (PM/MTS)/2020 dated 21.01.2021 was cancelled and fresh result was declared vide Memo No-B-1/7/LGO Exam (PM/MTS)/2020 8 dated 03.02.2021 in which Sh. Ashish Verma MTS Pathankot SO, who secured higher marks (58 marks in Paper-I) than the present applicant (41 marks in Paper-I) under unreserved (OC) community was declared successful (Annexure R-2). The applicant has obtained required minimum marks (40 marks in Paper-1 for OC community) and was declared a surplus qualified candidate by the Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices Gurdaspur Division vide Memo No-B-1/7/LGO Exam (PM/MTS)/2020 dated 03.02.2021 (Annexure R-3).
5. The applicant has filed rejoinder to the reply of the respondents reiterating the contents of the O.A. Further, the applicant has submitted that the respondents are silent and opaque as to how the said Sh. Ashish Verma came to know that how many marks, he got in all the three papers and that he had more marks than those declared successful as per result declared on 21.1.2021 (ANNEXURE A-3) because the result did not disclose the marks obtained by the said Sh. Ashish Verma. The reply is totally silent as to whether Sh. Ashish Verma got information about getting 58 marks through an RTI request or any other means. Even a copy of the representation of the said Ashish 9 Verma, as mentioned in this para has not been annexed. A mere plea that some facts emerged subsequently necessitating declaration of another result is not enough. The letter dated 31.1.2020 annexed as Annexure R-1 does not envisage for declaring a failed candidate as qualified/selected. The words taking due care cannot be stretched to initiate the process of cancelling the result, duly declared. In any case, this instruction was very much available with the respondents along with the OMR Sheets etc., while compiling the result and nothing prevented the respondents from using this instruction for being fair. The respondents have acted most unjustly and arbitrarily and they have admitted in this para that "the said instructions were misinterpreted while preparing result". The plea of the respondents that the case of Sh. Ashish Verma was required to be considered as per Directorate instructions but the said instructions were misinterpreted while preparing result is not only hollow but also appears to be an after-thought. The applicant never asked the respondents not to consider the case of Sh. Ashish Verma as the applicant was in no way involved/associated in preparing the result. Moreover, the OMR sheet of the Sh. Ashish Verma has not been annexed to the W.S. which 10 raises a big question mark & suspicion over the averments that Sh. Ashish Verma was awarded 58 marks. As regards category not filled, the respondents were duty bound while taking & supervising the examination that all candidates filled the OMR Sheets properly and if Sh. Ashish Verma was declared fail due to non-completion, the respondent cannot supply the omission subsequently to help him without a notice or opportunity of hearing to the applicant.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused pleadings available on record as well as gone through the judgments and we are of the view that there is no merit in the argument of the applicant. Judgments relied upon by the applicant is distinguishable and not applicable to the ratio of this case.
7. We have considered the written statement of respondents dated 18.04.2024. According to respondents 3, the result of the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination 3 (LDCE) was declared on 21.01.2021. All the 05 candidates who were declared successful in said examination were informed accordingly through Gurdaspur HO Regd. letter RP964806553IN, No. RP964806607IN, RP964807355IN, RP9647632651N, and RP964763314IN on 21.01.2021. The result of said examination was also posted in Divisional 11 Level WhatsApp group namely "GSP Postal Warriors" on 21.01.2021. After the declaration of result, matter was discussed with nearby other Divisions and it came to notice of the then Sr. Superintendent Of Post Offices, Gurdaspur that the instructions on the subject matter appeared to be misinterpreted while preparing the result, the same has been deleted from WhatsApp group immediately.
Consequently, all 05 registered letters were called back before delivery to candidates. Sh. Rakesh Kumar was declared successful with 41 marks in Paper-1 in the result declared on 21.01.2021 and Sh. Ashish Verma Postman Pathankot SO securing 58 marks in Paper-1 declared unsuccessful as he was mentioned "Failed" in computer generated evaluation sheet of Paper-II due to the reason "Category not filled". Following this, the Regional Office Chandigarh was informed through email on 28.01.2021 (Annexure R-2) that as per instructions contained in Dte letter no.A-34012/05/2019- DE dated 31.01.2020 received vide C.O letter No. Rectt/Con/2-14/2020 dated 20.01.2021, a candidate who secured 58 marks (2nd highest) was marked as "Failed" in the evaluation sheet awarded by software with the reason "Category not filled in Paper-II". Consequently, the said candidate was declared failed 12 accordingly. However, the said candidate was allowed by the competent authority (Circle Office) to appear in DEST as a qualified candidate. Also, someone from the WhatsApp group or successful candidates in the said exam may have informed Sh. Ashish Verma, MTS Pathankot, and applicant Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Postman Pathankot, regarding the declaration of the result.
8. Having perused details and sequence of events, we find there was no manual interference in OMR sheets and accordingly applicant secured 41 and Ashish Verma secured 58 marks. While preparing result itself, it had come to notice that Ashish Verma had secured more marks. In fact, he had been awarded higher marks by system but declared fail due to system process error and his interpretation of the circular. There was no interference in OMR sheets. Ashish Verma has scored more marks than applicant is not disputed. We find corrective action in recalling the result and issuing fresh result was taken quickly.
9. In the circumstances, we are of the view that no judicial interference is called for as merit has to be given due consideration. The O.A. is not tenable hence dismissed. No order to costs.
(RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI) (SURESH KUMAR BATRA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
13
/kr/