Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
Jarupala Anju vs Dept Of Posts on 25 November, 2024
1
OA.No.579/2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH, HYDERABAD
ORIGINAL APPLICATIONS NO.021/00579/2016
ORDER RESERVED ON 08.11.2024
DATE OF ORDER: 25.11.2024
CORAM:
HON'BLE DR. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, ADMINISTRATIVE
MEMBER
Jarupala Anju, S/o. Jarupala Ramulu
25 years, Unemployee
R/o H.No.1-74, Maktha Venkatapur
Chowdapur Post, Kulakacherla
Ranga Reddy District - 309 340. .....Applicant
(By Advocate Sri P.V.Krishnaiah)
Vs.
1. Chief Post Master General
AP Circle, Abids
Hyderabad - 500 001.
2. Assistant Director (Recruitment & Welfare)
O/o Chief Post Master General
AP Circle, Abids, Hyderabad - 1.
3. Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices
Secunderabad Division
Hyderabad - 500 080.
4. Union of India, Rep. by
its Chief Post Master General
AP Circle, Hyderabad. ....Respondents
(By Advocate Smt. K.Rajitha, Sr.PC for CG)
*****
2
OA.No.579/2016
ORDER
PER: HON'BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
1. The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking therein the following relief:
"To grant appropriate relief declaring the action of the 1st and 2nd Respondents not considering the case of the applicant for appointment to the post of Post Man/Mail Guard against the ST vacancies in pursuance of notification No.RE/1-22/PM & MG/DR/2013 & 2014, dtd. At Hyd-1 the 16.1.2015 issued by the 1st and 2nd Respondents while appointing candidates who got lesser marks than the Applicant, in considering the representation made by the applicant dt.06.05.2015 as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional violating Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and issue consequential directions directing the Respondents to forthwith consider the case of the applicant for appointment to the post of Post Man/Mail Guard against the ST vacancies in pursuance of the notification No.E/1-22/PM & MG/DR/2013 & 2014, dtd. at Hyd-1 the 16.1.2015 issued by the 1st and 2nd Respondents in considering the representation made by the Applicant dt.06.05.2015 ignoring the Proceedings No.B2/PM/DR/Exam-2014 dtd. at Hyd.80 the 25.05.2015 issued by the 3rd Respondent with effect from the date of appointment of the ST candidates who got lesser marks than the applicant with all consequential benefits including seniority and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
2. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are as follows:
i. The applicant submits that he belongs to the Scheduled Tribe community and he is fully eligible and qualified for appointment to the post of Post Man/Mail Guard.
ii. The 1st & 2nd Respondents issued a notification for direct recruitment, vide notification No.RE/1-22/PM & MG/DR/2013 & 2014, 3 OA.No.579/2016 dtd.16.01.2015. So far as the Secunderabad Division is concerned, 5 posts of Post Man/Mail Guard were notified for ST candidates, apart from 19 for OC and 12 for OBC, prescribing the minimum educational qualification for the said post as Matriculation/SSC from a recognized Board or University.
iii. The applicant applied for the aforesaid post of Post Man/Mail Guard online, with reference ID No.A310100A46B16. While filling up the online application, at Column No.3, i.e., 'Category Applied For', he had mentioned 'General' and at Column No.4, i.e., 'Special Category Applied For' he had mentioned 'No'. At the 5th Column, pertaining to community, he had mentioned 'ST'. As there is a separate column, i.e., Column No.5 exclusively with regard to the community, the applicant states that he felt that Column No.3 'Category Applied For' does not pertain to the community/social status and, therefore, he did not mention that he had applied for the said post under the Scheduled Tribe category.
iv. The applicant also made the point that even though he belongs to the Scheduled Tribe community, which is already stated in the application, in the event of the applicant getting higher merit/rank/marks, on par with OC candidates, the applicant is also entitled to get appointment against the OC category post, notwithstanding the fact that he belongs to the Scheduled Tribe community. Because of these reasons and, more particularly, as there is no clarity in Column No.3, the applicant says, he had filled up 'General' in this column.4 OA.No.579/2016
v. As the applicant belongs to the Scheduled Tribe community and since ST candidates are exempted from paying the examination fees, the applicant had paid Rs.100/- only towards application registration fees.
He was issued hall ticket No.1046150535 with the examination centre code as 1046, wherein the category is mentioned as OC.
vi. Since without payment of examination fees by the applicant, the authorities had issued hall ticket based on the payment of Rs.100/-
only as the application registration fees and allowed the applicant to write the examination, there was no occasion to get any doubt that the authorities did not treat the applicant as an ST candidate inasmuch as the applicant not only mentioned at Column No.5, i.e., community as 'Scheduled Tribe', he also submitted relevant social status certificate issued by the competent authority. The applicant says, he expected appointment either under the OC category or the ST category inasmuch as the applicant performed well in the written examination.
vii. To his surprise, the applicant was not selected for the aforesaid post of Post Man/Mail Guard. His name was not found in the results published in Memo No.BII/PM/MG/Dlgs/2015, dated, 04.05.2015, issued by the 3rd Respondent, either under the OC category or the ST category, i.e., against the 5 posts reserved for the Scheduled Tribe category. The applicant then obtained the duplicate OMR sheet as well as the final key for Set 'A' and came to know that the applicant had got 77 marks whereas ST candidates who got less than 77 marks had been selected. So far as the Secunderabad division is concerned, the last selected candidate under the OC category had got 81 marks, 5 OA.No.579/2016 whereas the last candidate under the OBC category had got 80 marks and the last OC candidate, against ex-serviceman vacancy, had got 47 marks. The last OBC candidate had got 79 marks and the last OBC candidate selected against Ex-serviceman vacancy had got 47 marks.
The five ST candidates, who were selected, had got 73, 73, 72, 72 and 71 marks, whereas the applicant, being an ST candidate, had got 77 marks. Therefore, the applicant argues that the 1st Respondent ought to have selected him against the ST vacancies.
viii. The applicant has argued that the column pertaining to date of birth of the last candidate under the ST category, who got 71 marks, viz., Bhukya Sharadha, was blank, meaning thereby that the authorities are not having date of birth particulars of Bhukya Sharadha. ix. After noticing the aforesaid facts, the applicant made a representation to the 1st Respondent, on 06.05.2015, narrating all the aforesaid facts and circumstances and requested to select and appoint him as Post Man against the ST vacancy, in pursuance of the notification, dt.16.01.2015. While making his representation, the applicant also attached documentary evidence to establish that he had applied under the ST category, by enclosing the caste certificate along with the application form and the fee receipt which clearly discloses that the applicant did not pay Rs.400/- towards examination fees and paid only Rs.100/- towards application registration fees and also submitted the OMR sheet, final key paper as well as provisional selection list demonstrating that not only the applicant belongs to the Scheduled Tribe community, but is also entitled to appointment against ST 6 OA.No.579/2016 vacancy. The 1st and 2nd Respondents did not pass any orders on his aforesaid representation till date. The 3rd Respondent issued proceedings, dt. 25.05.2015, stating that the representation of the applicant for considering him under the ST category at this stage cannot be considered, and that the mistake had happened due to wrong entry of data by the applicant. A preview option is provided in the software to check the correctness of the data before saving the application, but the applicant had failed to check the date entered by him. The entire process of evaluation for selection is done by computer, as per the data provided by the candidates. The said order, dt. 25.05.2015, issued by the 3rd Respondent, cannot sustain both on facts and law as the 3rd Respondent is not the competent authority to take a decision with regard to the grievance raised by the applicant and there is no reference of any proceedings issued by the competent authority, i.e., 1st and 2nd Respondents.
x. It is not appropriate on the part of the authorities to deprive the applicant of appointment and, consequently, depriving him of his fundamental rights under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India on the sole ground that the applicant mentioned as 'General' against Column No.5 and the computer completed the selection process.
xi. The applicant further submits that when the State authorities denied the appointment to the post of Police Constable to a BC candidate on the ground that the candidate had wrongly mentioned that he will come under the creamy layer, despite submitting his BC certificate, 7 OA.No.579/2016 apart from a certificate that he will not come under the creamy layer, the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition No.9409/2013, dt. 10th July, 2013, directed the State authorities to consider the said petitioner's case for appointment as Police Constable against BC vacancy, notwithstanding the fact that he made a small mistake as mentioned above, therefore, the authorities ought to have considered his case by adopting a practical approach instead of avoiding it in the guise of computer selection.
3. Grounds invoked by the applicant are as follows:
i. The action of the 1st and 2nd Respondents in not disposing of the representation, dt.06.05.2015, filed by the applicant and not appointing the applicant as Post Man/Mail Guard, despite him securing more marks, i.e., 77, than the candidates who got marks between 71 and 73 and got selected for appointment, despite mentioning that the applicant belongs to the Scheduled Tribe community and having accepted that the applicant is a Scheduled Tribe candidate and issuing the hall ticket, by exempting him from paying Rs.400/- towards examination fees, is highly arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional.
ii. The action on the part of the 3rd Respondent in issuing the Memo, dt.25.05.2015, on the representation made by the applicant to the 1st Respondent is not only without any authority and jurisdiction but also erroneous and arbitrary inasmuch as the 3rd Respondent rejected the request of the applicant on the sole ground that, as per the work done 8 OA.No.579/2016 by the computer, the selections are made, even though it is the legal obligation on the part of the concerned authorities to apply their mind and take a decision based on the facts and circumstances of the case with reference to the material available on record apart from the material submitted by the applicant.
iii. Respondents ought to have selected and appointed the applicant as Post Man/Mail Guard against the vacancies earmarked for Scheduled Tribe, taking into account the marks secured by the applicant in the written examination. Otherwise, such action is nothing but arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional, discriminatory, violating Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
4. On notice, Respondents have entered appearance through their Counsel and filed their reply. They have countered the submissions of the applicant. According to them, i. The applicant, Sri Jarupala Anju, had applied for the post of Postman/ Mail Guard. While applying for the post mentioned above, he has clearly mentioned the category applied for as "General" though he belongs to ST community. Against the column No.5, i.e., Community, he has mentioned "ST".
ii. In the result of direct recruitment PM/MG exam, held on 12.4.15, vide memo No.B2/PM/MG/Dlgs/15, dated 4.5.15, the name of the applicant was not found, since he was not selected. Aggrieved by his non-selection, either under the UR category or the ST category, the applicant obtained duplicate OMR sheet as well as final key for Set 9 OA.No.579/2016 'A' and came to know that he had secured 77 marks, whereas the ST candidates who got less than 77 marks had been selected. He had also ascertained that the last selected candidate under the UR category had secured 81 marks. Thus, the contention of the applicant that, though he had secured more marks than the selected candidates who had secured 73, 72 and 71 marks, he was not selected under the ST category, is not tenable, as he had applied for General category and the least marks secured under the General category was 81. The applicant has filed the OA for appointment to the post of PM/MG, under the ST community. He is not eligible and qualified for appointment to the post of Post Man/Mail Guard under the UR category.
iii. According to the Respondents, it is an afterthought, after seeing the results announced under various categories, vide memo No.BII/PM/MG/Dlgs/2015, dated 4.5.2015(R-2). While filling up the application at Column No.3, i.e., Category, the applicant had applied for the "General" category and, at Column No.4, i.e., 'Special Category Applied For', he has written 'No'. At the 5th Column pertaining to Community, he has mentioned as 'ST'.
iv. The contention of the applicant is that in the event of he getting more marks, on par with the OC candidates, he is also entitled to get appointment against the UR category posts, notwithstanding the fact that he belongs to the ST community, and due to the said reasons, the applicant mentioned as "General", in Column 3, is not tenable. The 10 OA.No.579/2016 applicant should have mentioned the Category Applied For as ST to enable his selection under the said category.
v. According to the Respondents, as per the notification in question, the cost of application form registration is Rs.100/- and examination fee is Rs.400/-. Candidates belonging to SC/ST/PH/Women are exempted from payment of the examination fee. Since the candidate had mentioned his community as 'ST', the system accepted the application form for Rs.100/-, exempting him from payment of the examination fee. Fee exemption is for the community noted in the application, i.e., SC/ST/Women and not for the category applied for.
vi. The authorities had issued hall ticket No.1046150535 with the examination centre code as 1046 and category as UR, since the applicant had mentioned the category as UR in the online application. vii. Respondents admit that the date of birth column of one ST candidate was blank in the result memo, issued vide letter No.BII/PM/MG/Dlgs/2015, dated 4.5.2015. But the date of birth of Bhukya Sharadha is 26.06.1990 as per her application (Annexure-R3). The applicant was duly informed on behalf of the competent authority that due to the wrong entry of category as 'General' by the applicant, he could not be considered under the 'ST' category. He was also informed that a preview option is provided in the software to check the correctness of data before saving the application. Failing to check the data entered by the applicant has resulted in his non-selection, for which the applicant alone is responsible.
11OA.No.579/2016
5. Heard learned counsels for both the parties and perused the materials on record.
6. Before analysing the submissions made by the rival parties, it will be useful to start with the notification advertising the post of Post Man/ Mail Guard in different Postal Divisions/Units in the Andhra Pradesh Postal Circle, vide Notification No.RE/1-22/PM & MG/DR/2013 & 2014, dtd.16.01.2015. Following columns in respect of the details of vacancies are significant:
Hyderabad City Region OC SC ST OBC PH Ex- Total Name of the Division PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 SM VH HH OH Hyderabad City Dn 13 2 3 7 1 - - 2 25 Hyderabad South East Dn 15 4 5 5 - 1 - 3 28 Secunderabad Dn 19 - 5 12 - - 1 4 36 Hyderabad GPO 5 1 1 1 - - - 1 8 Total 52 7 14 24 1 1 1 10 97 Secunderabad Division has the maximum number of vacancies in the OC category as well as the maximum number of overall vacancies. All the other divisions have less number of vacancies under OC as well as on the overall side. Under the column 'Age Limit', significant provision is given as follows:
"3. Age Limit:- ........ The age relaxation applicable only when a candidate applies against the post reserved for the relevant category. If they apply for any OC vacancy the age conditions applicable for OC candidates are to be fulfilled."
7. So far as the scheme of examination is concerned, it has been indicated that-
"Candidates shall be subjected to an Aptitude Test of the level of 10th Class/Matriculation covering the following subject/topics.
Total marks: 100."
There will be four parts, Part-A, Part-B, Part-C(i) & Part-C(ii) and all the four Parts/segments would have 25 marks each.
8. Next part dealing with the qualifying marks reads as follows: 12 OA.No.579/2016
"iii) Qualifying marks
a) Parts A & B - Minimum 10 marks for OC, 8 marks for SC/ST and
9 marks for OBC candidates in each part.
b) Part C (Two segments) - Minimum 10 marks for OC, 8 marks for SC/ST and 9 marks for OBC candidates in each segment.
c) 40 marks for OC, 33 marks for SC/ST and 37 marks for OBC candidates in aggregate with the condition as A & B above." The provisions regarding application fee and examination fee is as follows:
"10. APPLICATION FEE AND EXAMINATION FEE:
Cost of Application form Registration : Rs. 100/- Examination Fee : Rs. 400/-
Candidates belonging to SC/ST/PH/Women are exempted from payment of Examination fee.
The details of amount of fees to be paid by different categories are indicated in the following table."
9. In the light of the above, we can now appreciate the relevant entries in the application form submitted by the applicant, Sri Jarupala Anju, online which reads as follows:
"3. Category Applied For : General
4. Special Category Applied For : N
5. Community : ST
6. Name of the Division/Unit applied for : Secunderabad Dn (15)"
The Hall Permit for the examination conducted on 12.04.2015 has recorded the name and category of the candidate as follows:
"Name of the Post Applied For - POSTMAN/ MAIL GUARD Category - OC "
It is found that the Original Receipt dt. 31.01.2015, showing his community as ST, contains an undertaking as follows:-
"Undertaking by the candidate: On understating the vacancies available under the applied category and its eligibilities, I have paid the amount."
Results were announced on 04.05.2015 and the applicant has submitted his representation for considering him for appointment to the post, on 06.05.2015, 13 OA.No.579/2016 which has been disposed of vide the letter, dated 25.05.2015, of the Sr.Supdt. of Post Offices(R3) stating as follows:
"It is intimated by the competent authority that mistake had happened due to wrong entry of data by you. A preview option is provided in the soft ware to check the correctness of data before saving the application. You have failed to check the data entered by you. The entire process of evaluation/Selection is done by computer as per data provided by the candidates.
Hence your representation for considering under ST category at this stage cannot be considered."
It is to be noted that this communication has been made on behalf of the competent authority.
10. From the record, we also find that, though the date of birth of one Smt.Bhukya Sharadha is not mentioned in the notification, dated 04.05.2015, it is very much indicated in the annexure showing 'Report of Pass Candidates - Category - ST
- Secunderabad Dn Division'. She is among the 5 ST candidates declared as 'Pass'.
11. The judgment cited by the applicant in Writ Petition No.9409 of 2013 of Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, is not applicable in the present case since the claim in that case was for treating the candidate in the non-creamy layer category for which certificate had been duly annexed at the time of making the application, though, by mistake, in the form it was indicated as creamy layer. In this case, the intention of the candidate/applicant may be gauged from his own contention at Para-4D of the OA, wherein it is stated that -
"even though he belongs to the Scheduled Tribe community, which is already stated in the application, in the event of the applicant getting higher merit/rank/marks, on par with OC candidates, the applicant is also entitled to get appointment against the OC category post, notwithstanding the fact that he belongs to the Scheduled Tribe community. Because of these reasons and more particularly, as there is no clarity in Column No.3, the applicant mentioned as 'General' in this column."14 OA.No.579/2016
It appears that the applicant has consciously opted to appear under the OC category under which the maximum number of vacancies are available and, having done so, now he wishes to avail the benefits under the ST category. This is contrary to the provisions in the notification itself, where, in the context of age relaxation, it is made clear that it will be 'applicable only when a candidate applies against the post reserved for the relevant category'. If they apply for any OC vacancy, the age condition applicable for OC categories is to be fulfilled. As per the notification, various Parts/Segments in the Aptitude Test has different Qualifying Marks for OC, SC/ST and OBC Candidates. Thus, a candidate who applies for the OC category cannot now plead to be given a job though he has secured lower marks than all other candidates under OC category. This way, there can be no finality in the entire selection process. Since he has made a conscious decision and opted for OC category, as per the undertaking referred to above, he cannot now turn back and request for being accommodated against the ST category.
12. The order, dt. May, 8, 2009, in the Union of India & Ors. Vs. Dalbir Singh & Anr (2009) INSC 923, in Civil Appeal No.3409 of 2009(Arising out of SLP(C) No.19321 of 2005) was delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in similar facts and circumstances. The relevant portions are extracted below:
"............2. The short question is, whether the Administrative Tribunal is justified in directing the appellants to appoint Respondent No. 1 as a selected candidate in the general category even though he had not applied under that category.
3. The appellants advertised in the News Paper for selection to 20 vacant posts of Mazdoor both in general and reserved category. Respondent No. 1 applied for selection in the reserved (OBC) category and had annexed his OBC certificate dated 4.5.1997. ..................... In view of 15 OA.No.579/2016 this discrepancy in the caste certificate produced, the candidature of respondent No.1 came to be rejected by the appellants and, accordingly, no letter of appointment was issued to respondent No. 1.
x x x x x x
5. The appellants in their written objections while traversing all the assertions and allegations made by the applicant, had stated that separate Board Proceedings had been prepared for candidates who had claimed concessions on the basis of OBC category and the applicant having opted to be considered under the OBC category, he was expected to produce the genuine certificate issued by the competent authority. They had also stated that, to fill up the vacancies of Mazdoors, an advertisement had been issued separately for general and OBC categories and pursuant to such advertisement, the applicant had applied against OBC category and not under general category and, therefore, his name was not considered under general category.
6. The Administrative Tribunal while accepting the assertion made by the appellants regarding the non-suitability of the certificates furnished by the respondent herein, still directed the appellants to issue letter of appointment to the respondent by considering his candidature in the general category as he had scored more marks then one of the candidate in the general category.
7. Against this decision, the appellants had carried the matter by way of writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The High Court vide its order dated 28.4.2005 had dismissed the writ petition.
8. The substantial point that requires consideration in the appeal is, whether the Tribunal was correct in directing the appellants to give appointment to respondent No.1 under general category on the basis of marks obtained by him, even if it requires replacing of a last candidate in the selected general category.
9. For proper determination of the question, it would be convenient, first of all to refer to the advertisement/Employment Notice issued by the appellants inviting applications to fill up vacant posts of 4 Mazdoors in Suranasi, Jalandhar. In the employment notice there is a mention of number of posts available in general category and other backward classes (OBC category).
10. Pursuant to the aforesaid employment notice, respondent No.1, filed his application to consider his case under OBC category. In support of his claim, he had produced caste certificate. It so happens that the certificate produced was found to be defective.
This has resulted in not enlisting his name in the select list. Respondent at no point of time had claimed before the authorities that if for any reason, his case cannot be considered under OBC category; at least the appellants should consider his case under the general merit list. From the pleadings, it appears to us, that the appellants had prepared two sets of lists. The first one being the list of those candidates who had staked their claim in the general merit and the second list contains those candidates who had opted for consideration of their case under OBC category. The respondent at no point of time had taken exception to the procedure adopted by the appellants in preparing the select list. In our opinion, having opted to consider his case only under OBC category, he cannot thereafter claim that 16 OA.No.579/2016 his case requires to be considered in the general merit, only because, he has scored better percentage of marks than the last selected candidate in the general merit. In our considered view, the Administrative Tribunal having found that the appellants were justified in not considering the respondent's case for appointment under OBC category, ought not to have directed the appellants to consider his claim under general category.
11. For the foregoing reasons, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned orders. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their own costs."
13. In the light of the above orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is obvious that having applied as a UR candidate, notwithstanding the fact that the applicant belongs to the ST category, he cannot now take the plea to be considered as an ST candidate. The Advertisement, dated, 16.01.2015 included 19 posts for UR and 5 posts for ST candidates and the provisions/concessions allowed to reserved category would not apply unless a bonafide candidate of that category applies against vacancies reserved for the said category. Thus, the applicant is wrong in stating that he could be considered under the UR had he secured sufficient marks, otherwise he has to be considered under the ST quota, which would mean that one of the ST candidates, already shown as selected in the notified list of successful candidates, would be losing the job, which is exactly what the Supreme Court, in the order cited supra, has disapproved of.
14. In view of the above, the applicant has failed to make out a case and, hence, the OA is dismissed. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed. No order as to costs.
(Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi) (Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
25.11.2024
/ps/
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
PANDIRLAPA
DN: c=IN, o=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
ou=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING,
postalCode=500004, l=Hyderabad, st=Telangana, street=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, 2.5.4.20=ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209 LLI SANDHYA a8c2cfaa0a510742c22, serialNumber=35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8b a7768772f41813a4eb590082, [email protected], cn=PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA Date: 2024.11.26 17:43:47 +05'30'