Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
R Muthumadasamy vs D/O Post on 12 July, 2022
1 of 12
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA No.310/01424/2017
Dated the \2 day of July, Two Thousand and Twenty Two
PRESENT
HON'BLE SHRI T. JACOB, MEMBER{(A)
HON'BLE SHRI LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, MEMBER(J)
R. Muthumadasamy,
S/o. Ramasubbu,
GDS MD,
Kamudi S.0.,
Ramanathapuram District,
PIN-623 603. ... Applicant
(By Advocate: M/s. R. Malaichamy)
Vs
The Union of India Rep. by
Chief Postmaster General,
Tamil Nadu Circle,
Anna Salai,
Chennai- 600 002;
The Postmaster General,
Southern Region (TN),
Madurai- 625 002;
Superintendent of Post Offices,
Ramanathapuram Division,
Ramanathapuram- 623 501;
S. Devana Devi,
GDS BPM, Pidariseri BO,
A/w Parthibanur S.O.,
Ramanathapuram District.
. Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. M, Kishore Kumar, SPC)
2 of 12
ORDER
( Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr.T.Jacob, Member(A)) The applicant has filed this OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
"i) to call for the records of the 3" respondent pertaining to his order which is made in No. B6/23-2016-2017 dated 08.06.2017 in so far as the 4" respondent is concerned and the order made in No. B6/23/2016-17 dated 21.07.2017 and set aside the same, consequent to;
ii} direct the respondents to appoint the applicant as Postman in the 3" respondent Division based on the marks obtained in the examination which was held on 26.02.2017 with all attendant benefit and
iii) to pass such further orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper."
2. The brief facts of the case as stated by the applicant are as follows:-
The 1* respondent issued a notification dated 11.01.2017 calling eligible candidates for holding of Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) amongst MTS and competitive examination restricted to GDS for filling up the posts of Postman/Mail Guard for the vacancies of the year 2016-
17, The applicant is working as GDS MD at Kamudi SO. He is fully eligible for appearing Postman examination. Hence, he applied for the same and was permitted to sit for the examination which was held on 26.02.2017. There were 3 of 12 3 vacancies of Postman cadre notified by the 3" respondent in his Division. The I* respondent published the result and the applicant ranked as 4" successful candidate in the 3" respondent Division. The 4% respondent is said to be one among the successful candidate. But, she has not underwent any training given by the 3" respondent to other two candidates since she was in the family way, The 3" respondent in his order dated 08.06.2017 stated that three candidates including the 4" respondent had successfully completed the training from 26,.5.2017 to 08.06.2017 and allotted to Paramakudi HO to the 4" respondent. Therefore the respondents have to place all the relevant records including the charter of training giving to the candidates between 26.5.2017 and 08.06.2017 for the kind perusal of this Tribunal. It is pertinent to mention here that the 4"
respondent was on maternity leave continuously and she was not sent for training as stated by the 3" respondent in his order dated 08.06.2017. The said 4" respondent was admitted in the hospital ancl got delivered a child on 09.06.2017. Therefore, she could not practically participate in the training given to other two candidates from 26.05.2017 to 08.06.2017. On coming to know of the status of the 4" respondent, the applicant requested on 07.07.2017 to appoint him as Postman in the vacant place caused due to non-joining of the 4"
respondent for the vacancy earmarked to her, but, his request was rejected by an order dated 21.07.2017. Hence the OA, 4of12
3. The applicant has sought the aforesaid relief, inter alia, on the following grounds:-
i) The 4" respondent was not sent for training. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to be appointed in the vacant post earmarked for the 4" respondent. This fact has not been considered by the 3" respondent.
ii) Even after declaring the 4" respondent as successful candidate for appointment as Postwoman, she did not join the post till date and the order of 3 respondent dated 05.07.2017 granting leave to the 4" respondent as in the capacity that she is working as GDS, the 4! respondent automatically lost her chance and the post earmarked to her became vacant. This fact also has not been considered by the 3" respondent.
iii) Once the 4" respondent did not take training along with other candidates and still holding the post of GDS BPM, then the applicant is entitled to be appointed as Postman in the vacancy caused due to non-joining in the said post by the 4" respondent. Hence, rejecting the request of the applicant to appoint him as Postman is arbitrary and illegal.
4. Respondents have filed a detailed reply statement contesting the OA. It is submitted that the notification for holding of Limited Departmental Competitive Examination amongst Multi Tasking Staff are Competitive Examination restricted to Gramin Dak Sevaks for filling up the posts of Postmen for the vacancies of the year 2016-17 was issued by the 1* respondent vide letter no.
3 of 12 REP/S-1/LDCE&CE/16 Dated 11.01.2017. It is submitted that the examination was conducted on 26.02.2017 (Sunday) as per Postmen/Mail Guard (Amendment) Recruitment Rules 2012 communicated in Postal Directorate's letter No. 44-14/2009-SPB 1 dated 12.07.2012 and in letter No. 44-14/2009- SPB-1 dated 19.03.2015,
5. As per Postmaster General, Southern Region, Madurai- 625 002 letter No.REP/6-7/PM/MG/REC/16-17/MA dated 30.01.2017, the vacancies approved for Limited Departmental Competitive Examination amongst MTS and competitive Examination restricted to GDS for filling up the posts of Postman/Mail Guard in Ramanathapuram Division are furnished below, 50% by Direct Recruitment onl50% by Limited Departmental the basis of competitive' Competitive Examination by promotion Examination limited toGDS | from MTS UR|OBC| SC |ST| TOTAL }uR| opc! sc | st] Tora 3/-[.]- 3 3; - | 1 [4 5 48 Gramin Dak Sevak have applied for the Examination for the vacancies earmarked to the GDS and all the GDS were permitted to appear for the exam. Out of 48 GDS permitted for the Examination, 45 GDS officials have appeared for the said examination conducted on 26.02.2017, including the applicant Shri R. Muthumadasamy, GDS MD, Kamudi SO, The taarks secured by the applicant along with all 45 GDS Officials who appeared for the examination was published by the 1* respondent, The applicant bearing roll No. 6 of 12 12927033 has secured 65 marks (Part A-12, Part-B-14, Part C(i)-16 and Part C(ii)-22).
6. The Departmental Screening Committee recommended the following candidates according to the qualifying/ageregate marks obtained by the candidates, in accordance with the vacancies notified by the 1* respondent vide letter no. REP/S-1/LDCE&CE/16 dated 11.01.2017.
S1.| Roll No. Name of the DOB (Comm Part 'Total No. candidate S/Shri unity; A | B | C| D [Marks 1 (12927043 |S Devana Devi 07/04/89 | OBC | 16 | 20 119] 23] 78 2 112927028 |S Udhaya Kumaran] 14/04/82 | OBC | 16 14 |15}22] 67 3 12927041 IN Manickam 17/03/88} SC | 15} 14/17/20] 66 The applicant has secured only 65 marks in the above said examination. Even though he got qualified in the examination there is no vacancy to accommodate his candidature in the Ramanathapuram Dn.
7, The selected candidates were directed to undergo Postman training from 26.05.2017 to 08.06.2017 vide letter No. B6/23/2016-17 dated 23.05.2017, All the three selected candidates attend the training from 26.05.17 to 08.06.17, After completion of successful training the candidates were allotted to the following Sub Division/Until by the 3 respondent vide letter No. B6/23/2016- 17 dated 08.06.17.
7 of 12 Sl. Name & Designation of the officialName of the Sub Division/Unit INo.|S/Shri to which allotted, 1 |S. Devana Devi GDS BPM,|Paramakudi HO Pidariseri BO a/w Parthibanur SO 2 |S Udaya Kumaran, GDS MD/MC,Ramanthapuram Sub Division Melakadumalur BO a/w Abiramam SO 3 IN. Manickam, GDS --_ BPM, Tiruvadanai Sub Division Panachayal BO a/w Vellayapuram| SO
8. The GDS officials at S]. No. 2 and 3 above joined the Sub Division/Unit to which they were allotted on 09.06.2017 Forenoon. The GDS at Si. No.1 Smt. S. Devana Devi was admitted in the Syed Ammal Trust Hospital on 09.06.2017 and delivered a male child on 09.06.2017 at 18:37 hours and hence she applied for maternity leave eligible to GDS for the period from 09.06.2017 to 06.09.2017 and she joined as Postman, Paramakudi HO on 07.09.2017 Forenoon. The applicant submitted one representation dated 07.07.2017 with a request to post him as Postman against the unfilled vacancy. Accordingly he was given reply informing that among the three postman vacancies two candidates joined on 09.06.2017 and one candidate completed postman training and availed maternity leave and hence there is no unfilled vacancy and his request could not be acceded to vide this office letter no. B6/23/2016-17 dated 41.07.2017,
9. The applicant has filed rejoinder and the respondent has filed reply to rejoinder.
a 8 of 12
10. Heard Ld. counsel on both sides and perused the documents.
It. The issue for consideration in this OA is whether the applicant is entitled to be appointed as Postman in the 3" respondent Division based on the marks obtained in the examination which was held on 26.02.2017 in the place of 4"
respondent 12, Learned counsel for the applicant submits that one of the condition, imposed by the authority for training is that the pregnant candidates should not be sent for training. Hence, it is clear that the 4" respondent was permitted to join duty as Postwoman on 07.09.2017 without giving any training and they have created the records as if she was given training. Therefore the applicant is entitled to appointment as Postman.
13. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that there no bar to impart training during pregnancy vide Directorate letter No 1403/4/84- Esst (D) dated 13.02.1985 in which it has been mentioned that pregnant ladies are not involved in the training contains hazardous nature of duties. Further the competitive examination was restricted to GDS for 3 vacancies only. All the three GDS meritorious candidates are selected and filled through competitive examination restricted to GDS. The applicant got placed 4" meritorious candidate in the compétitive examination restricted to GDS and there is no other vacancy to accommodate the applicant.
9 of 12 14, We have considered the matter. The 4t respondent Smt S. Devana Devi who is the first meritorious candidate in the LDCE exam has attended Practical training at Ramanathapuram HO in the forenoon and theoretical training at Divisional Office, Ramanathapuram in the afternoon for the period from 26.5.2017 to 08.06.17, in accordance with memo B6/23/2016-17 dated 23.5.2017 of 3" respondent. After completion of Prescribed training all the three candidates were allotted to the Sub Division/Unit by the 34 respondent vide letter No. B6/23/2016-17 dated 08.06.17 which is noted against them and the fourth respondent has been allotted to Paramalkaudi HO unit. Later the 4"
respondent was admitted at Syed Ammal Trust Hospital at Ramanathapuram on 09.06.2017 morning only and gave birth to a male child at 18:37 brs on 09.06.2017. Till her assuming as postman she will be governed by DOP GDS (C &E) Rules 2011 and she availed maternity leave from 09.06.17 to 06.09.17. The attendance sheet maintained at Ramanathapuram HO and Divisional Office was produced for ready reference. Thus the averment made by the applicant that the 4" respondent could not practically participate in training is not correct.
15. For the three vacancies' notified three meritorious candidates were selected by the Departmental Screening Committee constituted by the second respondent. All the three candidates completed training on 08.06.2017 and the fourth respondent could not assume charge as postman on 09.06.2017 due to her confinement on 09.06.2017. Therefore the contention of the applicant that 10 of 12 there is one unfilled vacancy is not correct.
16. The applicant requesting to post him as Postman against the unfilled vacancy is against the law and devoid of merits. The request of the applicant could not be considered due to non availability of vacancy, as pleaded by the applicant. Further the selected candidate has delivered a child and claiming the vacancy of her is against natural justice and rights of a woman candidates.
17, i) ithas been held by the Constitution Bench in the case of Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47 as under:-
"7. It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons."
ii) Earlier too, the above decision was relied upon ina number of cases, vide State of U.P. v- Rajkumar Sharma, (2006) 3 SCC 330 wherein the Apex Court has observed as under:-
"14, Selectees cannot claim the appointment as a matter of right. Mere inclusion of candidate's name in the list does not confer any right to be selected, even if 1] of 12 some of the vacancies remained unfilled and the candidates concerned cannot claim that they have been given a hostile discrimination, (See Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 47 Asha Kaul v. State of J & K (1993) 2 SCC 573 ; Union of India v. SS, Uppal (1996) 2 SCC 168 Hanuman Prasad y, Union of India (1996) 10 SCC 742 ; Bihar Public Service Commission v. State of Bihar 1997) 3 SCC 198 Syndicate Bank v. Shankar Paul (1997) 6 SCC 584 ; Vice-Chancellor, University of Alahabad v. Dr. Anand Prakash Mishra (1997) 10-SCC 264 Punjab SEB v. Seema 1999 SCC (L&S) 629 ; All India SC & ST Employees' Assn. v. A. Arthur Jeen (2001) 6 SCC 380 ; Vinodan T. v. University of Calicut (2002) 4 SCC 726 ; S. Renuka v. State of A.PB.(2002) 5 SCC 193 and Batiarani Gramipa Bank v. Pallab Kumar (2004) 9 SCC 100)."
iii) The above decision has been reiterated in a recent Judgment of Girdhar Kumar Dadhich v. State of Rajasthan, (2009) 2 SCC 706, wherein it has been held as under:-
"Il. Jt is well-settled principle of law that even selected candidates do not have legal right in this behalf. (See Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India ......)"
iv) Again, in the case of Rakhi Ray v. High Court of Delhi, (2010) 2 SCC 637, the Apex Court has held as under:
"24, A person whose name appears in the select list does not acquire any indefeasible right of appointment. Empanelment at the best is a condition of eligibility for the purpose of appointment and by itself does not amount to selection or create a vested right to be appointed. The vacancies have to be filled up as per the statutory rules and in conformity with the constitutional mandate"
{} 8 12 of 12
18. The contention of the applicant that the fourth respondent automatically lost her chance is not correct and against Natural justice and against the rights of a woman candidate. Further he was factually wrong when he claimed that fourth respondent was not given training. Even otherwise, in exceptional circumstances a selected candidate can be given appointment initially and then sent for training after the situation has changed. Therefore rejecting the request of the applicant is in order and well within the purview of the rules. Further according to the respondent the applicant of this OA Shri R. Muthumadasamy has been declared as qualified candidate for the selection of Postman cadre through competitive examination restricted to GDS for the vacancies of the year 2019 in Ramanathapuram Division and the applicant has joined as Postman, Paramakudi HO on 16.03.2020.
19. Inthe conspectus of the above facts and circumstances of the case and the judgements of the Hon'ble Apex Court we do not see any justification to allow the OA in favour of the applicant. Resultantly, the OA is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
------
ce eet eee ee