Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Sheetal vs Deptt Of Posts on 17 February, 2026
1- O.A. No. 19/2025 & 28/2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
Pronounced on: 17.02.2026
Reserved on: 23.01.2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. SURESH KUMAR BATRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MRS. RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI, MEMBER (A)
1. Original Application No.060/19/2025
Sheetal, W/o Late Sh. Sachin Kumar, aged 39 years, R/o W.N. 168,
Basti Danishmand, Jalandhar City-144002 (Punjab), Multi-Tasking Staff
(MTS), Railway Mail Service, LD Division, Ludhiana.
(Group-D)
... Applicant
By Advocate: Mr. Jaswinder Singh
Versus
1. Union of India, through its Secretary, Department of Posts, Dak
Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001.
2. The Chief Postmaster General, Punjab Circle, Sandesh Bhawan,
Sector-17-E, Chandigarh-160017.
3. The Sr. Superintendent RMS, LD Division, Ludhiana-141008.
... .Respondents
By Advocate: Mr. Sanjay Goyal, Sr. CGSC
2. Original Application No.060/28/2025
Jatinder, S/o Rakesh Kumar, aged 27 years, R/o House No. 287, Ward
No. 32, Bazri Company, Pathankot (Pujab), Multi-tasking Staff (MTS),
Amritsar Postal Division.
... Applicant
By Advocate: Mr. Jaswinder Singh
Versus
1. Union of India, through its Secretary, Department of Posts, Dak
Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001.
Digitally signed 2. The Chief Postmaster General, Punjab Circle, Sandesh Bhawan,
by MAMTA Sector-17-E, Chandigarh-160017.
WADHWA
3. The Sr. Superintendent Post Offices, Amritsar Dn. Amritsar- 143001.
... .Respondents
By Advocate: Mr. Sanjay Goyal, Sr. CGSC
2- O.A. No. 19/2025 & 28/2025
ORDER
Per: SURESH KUMAR BATRA MEMBER (J):-
1. The above captioned 02 Original Applications are being disposed of by this common order, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, as the question of law involved, the material facts, the reliefs sought and the grounds urged therein are identical in all the cases. For the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition, the facts are being extracted from Original Application No. 060/19/2025. The relief claimed (in OA No. 19/2025) is as under:-
(i) To declare that the impugned Memo dated 27.12.2024 (Annexure A-5) is illegal, perverse, wrong and bad in law;
(ii) To quash and set aside the impugned Memo (Annexure A-5);
(iii) To direct the respondents to allow the applicant to continue working as MTS;
2. The facts, as taken from O.A. No. 19/2025, are that the applicant was appointed as Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) on compassionate grounds on 03.08.2021. She belongs to Scheduled Caste category and is a person with benchmark disability (OH). Respondent No.2 conducted the Competitive Examination (CE-2024) for recruitment to the cadre of MTS from eligible GDS as per instructions of Respondent No.1 dated 05.04.2022, 31.10.2023 and 10.07.2024.
Digitally signed by MAMTA 3. The applicant appeared in the examination on 25.08.2024. The WADHWA result was declared by Respondent No.2 vide OM dated 13.11.2024 (Annexure A-1). In sub-para (v) of para 3.6 under horizontal reservation, it was specifically recorded that "Sheetal, ABPM, Indl. Town 3- O.A. No. 19/2025 & 28/2025 SO, Jalandhar Dn., Roll No. 808072 of PwBD-SC (OH) has been selected against PwBD-SC (OH) for the vacancy year 2024."
4. Pursuant to the said result, the applicant was allotted to HRO Ludhiana as MTS vide OM dated 21.11.2024 (Annexure A-2) and posted by the Head Record Officer, Ludhiana Sorting as MTS in Pay Matrix Level-1 vide OM dated 20.11.2024 (Annexure A-3). She relinquished charge as GDS on 21.11.2024 (Annexure A-4) and joined as MTS w.e.f. 28.11.2024. She worked for the month of December 2024 and was paid salary, as evidenced by the pay slip Annexure A-6.
5. On 27.12.2024, Respondent No.3 issued OM No. B3/Exam/GDS to MTS/2024 dated 27.12.2024 (Annexure A-5), sent to the applicant through WhatsApp, stating that "as per revised result name of Ms. Sheetal does not come in the result due to low merit in comparison to other candidates and her name is struck off from the record of HRO Ludhiana." She was orally asked to go back and join as GDS.
6. The applicant has challenged the said action on the ground that once a duly declared result led to her appointment and she had joined and worked as MTS, the respondents could not cancel her selection without issuing any notice or affording her any opportunity of hearing. It is contended that the impugned memo has civil consequences and violates the first principle of natural justice.
Digitally signed by MAMTA 7. It is further contended that the respondents acted arbitrarily and WADHWA with non-application of mind by first declaring the result and selecting the applicant under PwBD-SC (OH) for vacancy year 2024 vide Annexure A-1, and thereafter stating in the revised tabulation that "no 4- O.A. No. 19/2025 & 28/2025 OH vacancy is available." The respondents, according to the applicant, cannot blow hot and cold and take inconsistent stands.
8. It is also contended that there is no provision in law for appointment against "future vacancies" and that the respondents have displaced the applicant by illegally adjusting other candidates against future vacancies. The applicant submits that she has committed no fraud, misrepresentation or ineligibility and, therefore, her appointment could not have been cancelled in this manner.
9. In support of her contention regarding violation of natural justice, reliance is placed on Shridhar v. Nagar Palika, Jaunpur (AIR 1990 SC 307), where the Supreme Court held that no person should be condemned unheard. In Shravan Kumar v. State of Bihar (AIR 1991 SC
309), cancellation of appointment without hearing was set aside. In Jaswant Singh v. State of M.P. (2001 Lab IC 36), the Supreme Court quashed cancellation of appointments made without affording opportunity of hearing. Reliance is also placed on Basudeo Tiwary v. S.K. University (AIR 1998 SC 3261).
10. On the aspect of inconsistent stands, reliance is placed on Rajasthan State Industrial Development Corporation v. Diamond & Gem Development Corporation (2013) 5 SCC 470, Nagubai Ammal v. B.S. Rao (AIR 1956 SC 593), and JAC of Airline Pilots' Association v. DGCA (2011) 5 SCC 435, wherein the principle that a Digitally signed by MAMTA WADHWA party cannot approbate and reprobate has been reiterated.
11. The respondents files written statement and submitted that the applicant appeared in the GDS to MTS competitive examination for the 5- O.A. No. 19/2025 & 28/2025 year 2024 held on 25.08.2024 and was initially selected as MTS under the PwBD category pursuant to the result declared by Circle Office, Chandigarh vide memo dated 13.11.2024. Consequently, she was posted in HRO Ludhiana and joined the post on 28.11.2024. It was further submitted that after declaration of the result, certain PwD candidates submitted representations alleging discrepancies in the selection list. Upon consideration of these representations, a Tabulation Committee was constituted to reassess the results of PwBD candidates, which led to publication of a revised result on 27.12.2024. In the revised merit list, candidates securing higher marks were selected, while the applicant, having secured 52 marks, fell below the merit threshold and her name was consequently removed from the list of selected candidates.
12. The respondents stated that the applicant was informed about the revised result and was asked to relinquish charge; however, she did not do so, compelling the department to issue orders striking off her name from the post of MTS due to administrative necessity and to enable posting of the meritorious candidate allocated to the division. It was also pointed out that the candidate selected in her place had already joined duty on 31.12.2024, and the applicant subsequently rejoined her original post as GDS on 09.01.2025.
13. The respondents emphasized that the original result notification Digitally signed by MAMTA itself contained a specific stipulation that, if any mistake or ineligibility WADHWA was discovered, or if changes in merit arose for any reason, the result could be revised and names of candidates could be deleted accordingly.
6- O.A. No. 19/2025 & 28/2025 Hence, the revision of the result and consequential action were in accordance with the declared conditions and applicable rules.
14. In support of their stand, the respondents relied upon judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab SEB Vs. Malkiat Singh (2005) 9 SCC 22 to argue that mere inclusion of a candidate‟s name in a selection list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment and that appointments to public posts must strictly follow merit and prescribed procedures, without arbitrariness or relaxation of advertised conditions.
15. The respondents, in their supplementary affidavit, have submitted that out of 194 MTS posts notified in CE-2024, 181 posts were filled and 13 ST posts remained unfilled. It is stated that eight PwBD candidates were initially selected, including the applicant who had secured 52 marks in SC-OH category. It is further submitted that due to receipt of representations from several PwBD candidates, a revised tabulation for PwBD candidates was ordered. The Tabulation Committee met on 26.12.2024 and prepared a revised merit list for PwBD candidates against nine PwBD vacancies of 2023 and 2024.
16. The respondents have relied upon DoPT OM dated 17.05.2022 to justify interchange of disability categories and adjustment of candidates against future vacancies. It is stated that since no HH candidate was available for one vacancy, the HH vacancy of 2023 was interchanged Digitally signed by MAMTA WADHWA with OH category and candidates with higher marks such as Sh.
Gagandeep Singh Sehgal (64 marks) and Sh. Jatinder (56 marks) were selected. It is also stated that since Sh. Gourav Bedi belonged to OC category and no UR vacancy was available, he was adjusted against a 7- O.A. No. 19/2025 & 28/2025 future vacancy with the approval of the competent authority. It is further stated that as per the revised tabulation, the applicant having secured 52 marks could not find place among the selected PwBD-OH candidates, and therefore her name was struck off.
17. In rebuttal, the applicant has submitted that the so-called revised tabulation was done behind her back after she had already joined as MTS. No representation was invited before the original result dated 13.11.2024 (Annexure A-1), and the plea that representations were received is false and misleading. It is further submitted that the respondents have contradicted themselves by stating in Annexure A-1 that the applicant was selected against PwBD-SC (OH) vacancy for year 2024, and later stating that "no OH vacancy is available." This, according to the applicant, clearly shows arbitrariness and application of the doctrine of approbate and reprobate. The applicant has also rebutted the reliance on the DoPT OM dated 17.05.2022 by submitting that the OM pertains to promotion and reservation in promotion for PwBDs and does not authorize appointment against future vacancies or cancellation of an already declared result without notice.
18. It is also contended that there is no provision, whatsoever for appointment against a vacancy, which has not yet arisen, and therefore the action of adjusting other candidates against future vacancies is illegal.
Digitally signedby MAMTA WADHWA 19. We have gone through the pleadings, perused the material available on file and considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties.
8- O.A. No. 19/2025 & 28/2025
20. From the pleadings and record, the facts which remain undisputed are that the applicant was appointed as GDS on 03.08.2021. She belongs to SC category and is PwBD (OH). She appeared in CE- 2024 on 25.08.2024. The Result dated 13.11.2024 (Annexure A-1) declared her selected against PwBD-SC (OH) for vacancy year 2024. She was allotted and posted as MTS vide OMs dated 21.11.2024 and 20.11.2024 (Annexures A-2 and A-3). She relinquished GDS charge on 21.11.2024 (Annexure A-4) and joined as MTS on 28.11.2024. She worked and was paid salary for December 2024 (Annexure A-6). Her name was struck off vide Memo dated 27.12.2024 (Annexure A-5) without any notice or hearing.
21. The questions that arise for consideration are:-
(i) Whether the respondents were justified in revising the result after its declaration and the applicant had joined and worked as MTS;
(ii) Whether cancellation of the applicant‟s selection without notice and hearing is violative of principles of natural justice;
(iii) Whether the respondents could lawfully adjust candidates against future vacancies and displace the applicant;
(iv) Whether the impugned Memo dated 27.12.2024 (Annexure A-5) is sustainable in law.
22. With regard to the first issue of justification for revision of result Digitally signed by MAMTA WADHWA by the respondents after declaration and joining of applicants to the post of MTS, we find that two posts of PwBD for the year 2023 and seven posts for the year 2024 were vacant. After the declaration of final result on 13.11.2024, the respondents received representations from 9- O.A. No. 19/2025 & 28/2025 several PwBD candidates raising their grievance of selection of lower merit candidates. Consequent thereto, for review of the result, a tabulation committee was constituted. The said committee tabulated the result qua nine vacancies only in respect of PwBD categories. However, result with regard to 172 other candidates remained unchanged. The said committee collected the original applications and disability certificates of all 23 PwBD candidates, the break up whereof has been given in para 6 of the supplementary affidavit. In terms of OM dated 17.05.2022 issued by the DoP&T on the issue of reservation in promotion of Persons With Benchmark Disabilities (PwBDs), the vacancy of HH sub category for the year 2023 was interchanged with OH category. It is pertinent to mention that the applicant Sheetal applied under the OH (SC) category and applicant Jatinder applied under OC (OH) category. From the perusal of record, we find that there was only one vacancy for OH (SC) category for the year 2024 and likewise one vacancy for OC (OH) for the year 2023. On the basis of examination of original applications and disability certificate as well as marks secured by the PwBD candidates, a revised merit list was drawn by the committee. One Mr. Umesh under SC (OH) category having secured 78 marks got the 2nd position in the merit list. The first rank in the merit list was secured by Ms. Navpreet Kaur under OC (OH) category with 88 marks on her own merit. These facts have not been disputed by the applicants.
Digitally signedby MAMTA WADHWA 23. The applicant Sheetal (in O.A. No. 19/2025) secured 52 marks, therefore, she has been placed at Sr. No. 13 of the merit list under SC (OH) category. Due to only one reserved vacancy of SC (OH), she could not be appointed and her selection vide order dated 13.11.2024 was 10- O.A. No. 19/2025 & 28/2025 cancelled. From the perusal of revised merit list, we have noticed that even one Sewak Singh under SC (OH) category with 62 marks, which is higher than the marks obtained by the candidate Sheetal could not be appointed due to non availability of OH vacancy.
24. Similarly, the applicant Jatinder in O.A. No. 28/2025 having secured 56 marks under OC-OH category has been placed at Sr. No. 11 of the merit list as one Rajat Virdi under OC-OH category with 72 marks, at Sr. No. 4, was appointed. The respondents in order to redress the grievance of the other candidates of PwBD category has rightly carried out the exercise for review and revision of result. We find that no illegality has been committed by the respondents in revising the result, thereby giving appointment to the meritorious candidates of PwBD category. The representation given by the candidates have been placed on record by the respondents. The respondents were legally bound to consider the contentions in representations to redress the grievances.
25. With regard to second question as to whether the respondents have violated the principles of natural justice, we find that the respondents declared the result on 13.11.2024, wherein both the applicants have been declared selected candidates in para 3.6 of the result. The said result also contains the clause 8, which stipulates that in case subsequently, it is found that any qualified candidate was not Digitally signed by MAMTA eligible to appear in the examination or in case any mistake is found WADHWA with regard to the announcement of result of any candidate, his or her name will be deleted from the list of successful candidates. For the sake 11- O.A. No. 19/2025 & 28/2025 of convenience, clause 8 read is reproduced hereunder which reads under:-
"8. In case, subsequently if it is found that any of the qualified candidate (s) was not eligible to appear in the examination under the extant rules or instructions on the subject or for any other reasons or in case, any mistake is found with regard to announcement of the result of any candidates for any reason whatsoever, his/her name will be deleted from the list of successful candidates, as the case may be. The result is also subject to any change in merit list of the selected candidates due to any unforeseen reasons in accordance with the existing rules on the subject."
26. From the reading of aforesaid, it is evident that the respondents have reserved their right to modify the result in the eventuality of any bonafide mistake. The applicants have stressed upon declaration of result dated 13.11.2024, which also stipulates aforesaid condition, therefore, by accepting the result along with clause 8, now the applicants cannot challenge the authority of respondents to review the final result. The respondents have carried out the exercise of revision of result immediately after its declaration on 13.11.2024, therefore, it cannot be said that the principles of natural justice have been violated.
27. Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on judgment of Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Vikas Pratap Singh and Others Vs. State of Chhatisgarh and Ors. (Civil appeal Nos. 5318-19 Digitally signed by MAMTA of 2013 @ SLP (C) Nos.26341-26342 of 2011 decided on 09.07.2013) WADHWA and of the Hon‟ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Sahil Aggarwal Vs. State of Punjab and Others (CWP No. 12835 of 2012 (O&M) decided on 26.04.2014). These cases are distinguishable, as the 12- O.A. No. 19/2025 & 28/2025 applicants in the relied upon cases have already completed three years of service and undergone the training, which is not the case here. There is no dispute that the applicants have not challenged the merit list of the examination. Meaning thereby, they have accepted the marks obtained by the candidates in the examination. In the case of State of Orissa Vs. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei and Others (Civil Appeal No. 499 of 1965 decided on 07.02.1967), the preliminary enquiry was made by the respondents before issuance of order of compulsory retirement. However, the report of the enquiry officer was never disclosed to the respondents. The Hon‟ble Apex Court held that such enquiry and decision were contrary to the basic concept of justice and cannot have any value. The judgments relied upon by the applicants to contend violation of principles of natural justice are also distinguishable in view of the fact that the applicants herein were well aware that the respondents can take a decision to review of result, as there was a clear stipulation to that effect in para 8 of the result.
28. With regard to 3rd issue, the respondents have rightly carried out the exercise in accordance with the provisions under OM dated 17.05.2022, which provides the procedure for inter se exchange and carry forward of reservation in case of promotion. For the sake of convenience, clause 13 of the OM dated 17.05.2022 is extracted hereunder:-
Digitally signed
by MAMTA "13. ZONE OF CONSIDERATION. INTERSE EXCHANGE AND WADHWA CARRY FORWARD OF RESERVATION IN CASE OF PROMOTION 13.1 While filling up the reserved vacancies by promotion by selection, those PwBD candidates who are within the normal zone of consideration, shall be considered for promotion.
However, if adequate number of PwBD candidates of the 13- O.A. No. 19/2025 & 28/2025 respective category are not available within the normal zone, the zone of consideration may be extended to five times the number of vacancies and the PwBD candidate falling within the extended zone may be considered for promotion. In the event of non availability of candidates even in the extended zone, the vacancy shall not be filled and be carried forward to the subsequent year. In the subsequent year, if a PwBD of the required category is not available, the reservation can be exchanged with the other categories, so that post can be filled by a person with other category of disability, if possible. If a PwBD candidate of other category is within the zone of consideration and within the number of vacancies available, he cannot be denied promotion on the grounds of disability. If it is not possible to fill up the post by reservation even in the 2nd year, the post may be filled by a person other than a PwBD, and the reservation shall be carried forward for two subsequent recruitment years, whereafter it shall lapse.
13.2 While filling up vacancies by promotion by non-selection, the eligible candidates with benchmark disabilities within the normal zone of consideration shall be considered for promotion against the reserved vacancies. In case no eligible candidate of the respective category of disability is available in the normal zone of consideration, additional PwBD candidates of respective category to the extent required shall be considered by going down the seniority list, provided they are eligible, and that the post is identified for them. In the event of non-availability of PwBD candidates for promotion even in the extended zone, the vacancy shall not be filled and shall be carried forward. In the subsequent year if PwBD of respective category is not available, the same can be exchanged with other categories of disabilities identified for it. If it is not possible to fill up the vacancy by reservation even by exchange, the reservation shall be carried forward for two subsequent recruitment years, where-after it shall lapse.
13.3 In order to ensure that cases of lapse of reservation are kept to the minimum, any recruitment of the PwBD candidates shall first be counted against the vacant posts brought forward from previous years, if any, in the chronological order. If candidates are not available for all the vacancies, the older carried-forward posts shall be filled first, and the current vacancies shall be carried forward, if not filled up, provided that in every recruitment, the number of vacancies reserved for PwBD, including the carried forward vacancies, shall be Digitally signed announced beforehand, for the information of all aspirants." by MAMTA WADHWA 29. In view of the aforesaid, the appointment of Mr. Gourav Bedi under OC-HH category having secured 68 marks against the future vacancy is justified. Learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that the OM dated 17.05.2022 provides provision for reservation 14- O.A. No. 19/2025 & 28/2025 in promotion to PwBD candidates, but this OM is not applicable in case of fresh recruitment. The said contention of learned counsel is misplaced as the respondents have not selected PwBD candidates by way of fresh recruitment. Rather, it was recruitment to the cadre of MTS from eligible GDS against vacancy for the years 2023 and 2024 and was not open competition.
30. In view of the discussion hereinabove, the cancellation of candidature of both the applicants due to their being lower in merit and limited vacancy is legally sustainable and impugned memo dated 27.12.2024 is held to be legal. The Original Applications are dismissed being found to be devoid of merit. No costs.
(RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI) (SURESH KUMAR BATRA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
Dated: 17.02.2026
„mw‟
Digitally signed
by MAMTA
WADHWA