Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow
Shiv Nath Tripathi vs Union Of India on 11 February, 2026
CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00018 of 2017 Shiv Nath Tripathi Vs. UOI & Ors.
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
LUCKNOW BENCH LUCKNOW
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 332/0018 of 2017
Dated, this 11th day of February, 2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Ojha, Member- Judicial
Hon'ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative
Shiv Nath Tripathi, aged about 53 years, S/o Ramdev Tripathi, R/o
Village-Kursaha, District Bahraich (working against the post of Multi-
Tasking Staff (MTS) at Post Office Payagpur, District Bahraich).
.....Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Pushp Raj Singh
VERSUS
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Postal &
Telecommunications, New Delhi.
2. Chief Postmaster General, U.P. Circle, Lucknow.
3. Superintendent of Posts, Bahraich.
.....Respondents
By Advocate: Smt. Prayagmati Gupta
ORDER (ORAL)
Per Hon'ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative In this case relating to promotion, the applicant has sought following reliefs:
"a. The Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to set aside the order dated 27.01.2015 passed by opposite party no. 3 whereby he cancelled the promotion of applicant against the post of Postal Assistant contained as Annexure No.1, in the interest of justice. b. The Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to direct the concerned Respondents to consider and promote/post the applicant against the post of Postal Assistant, in the interest of justice. c. Any other order which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit may deem fit may also be passed."
2. The applicant was appointed to the post of Multi Tasking Staff (MTS, hereafter) from 01.05.2004. He participated in Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE, hereafter) for promotion to the post of Postal Assistant on 15.09.2013 and was declared Page 1 of 4 CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00018 of 2017 Shiv Nath Tripathi Vs. UOI & Ors. successful. The applicant underwent induction training for the post from 10.11.2014 to 09.01.2015 for 9 weeks initially, but he could not obtain the requisite 60% marks despite 2 additional weeks of training, and he was reverted to the post of MTS. Aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this OA.
3. The applicant's grievance is that there were other persons who could not qualify the relevant examination after training, but they were promoted to the post of Postal Assistant while the applicant's promotion was cancelled; specifically the applicant has cited the case of one Ram Krishna Yadav in Bharaich Division who could not obtain 60% marks in training, yet he was promoted and is working as Postal Assistant. 4.1 Per contra, the respondents state that it is essential to get 60% marks in the test of Induction Training but the applicant failed to get requisite marks in the test held at the Postal Training Center, Saharanpur and even after two additional weeks of training and weekly tests conducted on 17.01.2015 and 23.01.2015, he was unsuccessful. It is contended that no official is promoted till he successfully qualifies the written examination and the induction training which the applicant could not.
4.2 In compliance to this Tribunal's interim order dated 08.12.2025, the respondents have clarified the case of Ram Krishna Yadav cited by the applicant vide their affidavit dated 13.01.2026 as follows:
"Shri Ram Krishna Yadav had also failed to successfully complete the training and the percentage of the marks obtained by Shri Ram Krishna Yadav were 47.5%, which is less than the bench mark training passing marks of 60%. Shri Ram Krishna Yadav failed to complete the training successfully despite being given an opportunity for induction training for 9 weeks and retraining for 2 weeks. Further an adverse notice was issued by PTC Saharanpur vide memo dated 24.01.2015. A copy of the said memo was endorsed to SPOs, Mainpuri for information and necessary action. It appears that a departmental lapse occurred at the level of SPOs Mainpuri, as Shri Ram Krishna Yadav was allowed to join the department despite clear directions/ Page 2 of 4 CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00018 of 2017 Shiv Nath Tripathi Vs. UOI & Ors.
instructions issued by PTC Saharanpur vide memo dated 24.02.2015. Hence the authority responsible for the lapses are being identified for necessary action against them. It is further relevant to submit that Shri Ram Krishna Yadav had already attained the age of superannuation on 31.12.2017..."
(emphasis supplied)
5. We have heard both the parties.
6.1 The relevant rule for completion of training program as per the affidavit dated 13.01.2026 of the respondents is as follows:
"Certificate for completion of the program.
The candidates who obtain a total of 60% marks to be given a certificate of completion of the induction training of PTCs.
Candidates who do not obtain 60% will need to be retained for retraining and will be detained for two weeks and will undergo two tests (each week). If candidates who are detained for retraining for additional two weeks do not obtain 60% marks suitable adverse notice will be taken against them."
(emphasis supplied) It is evident from the above that the criteria for successful completion of induction training is minimum 60% marks. It is not in dispute that the applicant could not complete the induction training of 9 weeks successfully and that he was retrained for two more weeks and tested twice but he could not complete the induction training successfully. In view of this position, we cannot fault the respondents for reverting the applicant to the post of MTS.
6.2 In regard to the case of Ram Krishna Yadav, the respondents have admitted that he did not qualify in the induction training but he was promoted due to departmental lapse and for which the concerned authorities are being identified for taking action against them. In this context, it would be advantageous to refer to the following observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa & Anr vs Mamata Mohanty (2011) 3 SCC 436:
"56. It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate illegality and it does not envisage negative equality. Thus, even if some other similarly situated persons have been Page 3 of 4 CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00018 of 2017 Shiv Nath Tripathi Vs. UOI & Ors.
granted some benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such order does not confer any legal right on the petitioner to get the same relief. (Vide Chandigarh Administration & Anr v. Jagjit Singh & Anr., AIR 1995 SC 705; Yogesh Kumar & Ors. v. Government of NCT Delhi & Ors., AIR 2003 SC 1241; M/s Anand Buttons Ltd. etc. v. State of Haryana & Ors., AIR 2005 SC 565; K.K. Bhalla v. State of M.P. & Ors., AIR 2006 SC 898; Maharaj Krishan Bhatt & Anr. v. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors., (2008) 9 SCC 24; Upendra Narayan Singh (supra); and Union of India & Anr. v. Kartick Chandra Mondal & Anr., AIR 2010 SC 3455)."
(emphasis supplied) In view of the settled principle of law quoted above, the irregular promotion of Ram Krishna Yadav would not legally entitle the applicant to similar treatment, in our opinion.
6.3 Before parting, we hope and trust that the respondents would take steps to put their house in order so that undue extension of benefits in a particular Division does not cause heartburn to similarly placed person in the other Division and result in avoidable litigation. 7.1 In view of the foregoing, this OA is dismissed for being devoid of merit.
7.2 Pending MAs, if any, also stand disposed of. 7.3 Parties shall bear their own costs.
(Pankaj Kumar) (Justice Anil Kumar Ojha)
Member (A) Member (J)
vidya
Vidya Ben Digitally signed by
Vidya Ben Waghela
Waghela Date: 2026.02.13
12:50:24 +05'30'
Page 4 of 4