Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
V Vijayakumar vs The Secretary Ministry Of External ... on 22 October, 2025
1
O.A No. 180/00893/2019
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
ERNAKULAM
Original Application No. 180/00893/2019
Wednesday, this the 22nd day of October, 2025
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Mrs. V. RAMA MATHEW, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
1. V. Vijayakumar Aged 48 years,
S/o. K.K.Vijayan, Assistant Superintendent,
Regional Passport Office, Kochi,
Residing at "Soubhagya",
Opp. Mangayil High School,
Maraadu P.O, Ernakulam -682 304.
2. V.D. Jayachamdran, aged 48 years,
S/o Damodaran Menon,
Assistant Superintendent,
Regional Passport Office, Kochi,
Residing at "Navaneetham",
Irumpanam P.O, Ernakulam -682309. - Applicants
(By Advocates: Mr. T.C. Govindaswamy, Ms. Kala T. Gopi and
Mr. M. Abdul Salim)
Versus
1. Union of India,
represented by the Secretary to Government of India,
Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi- 110001.
2. The Joint Secretary (PSP) & Chief Passport Officer,
Ministry of External Affairs, CPV Division,
Patiala House Annexe, Tilak Marg, New Delhi- 110001.
SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.10.22 16:39:03+05'30'
2
O.A No. 180/00893/2019
3. The Regional Passport Officer,
Regional Passport Office,
Panampally Nagar, Kochi -682036.
4. Swapna S., aged 47 years, W/o. Suresh K.B.,
Assistant Superintendent, Regional Passport Office,
Chennai-600 002, residing at 1B & 1C,
Vee Pee Manor Flat, Radha Nagar Main Road,
Chrompet, Chennai - 600 044.
5. V. Indra, aged 44 years, W/o. S. Sriram,
Assistant Superintendent, Regional Passport Office,
Chennai - 600 002, residing at S1, Second Floor,
No. 143, Sivanada Salai, Gill Nagar, Choolamedu,
Chennai - 600 094.
6. Uday P. Somaiya, aged 46 years,
S/o. Prabhudas S. Somaiya, Assistant Superintendent,
Regional Passport Office, Ahmedabad - 380 006,
Residing at A5, Falgun Tenaments, Near Shraddha School,
Jodhpur Gam Road, Satellite, Ahmedabad 380 015.
7. T. Sathish, aged 48 years, S/o. N.R. Thukaram,
Assistant Superintendent, Regional Passport Office,
Madurai - 625002, residing at Door No. 11, Block No. 60,
Central Excise Staff Quarters, Meenambalpuram,
Madurai - 625 002.
8. M. Prabhakaran, aged 47 years, S/o. M. Muthukumaravelu,
Assistant Superintendent, Regional Passport Office,
Trichy - 620 008, residing at : E2/73, Bhel Township,
Kailasapura, Trichy - 620 014.
9. Piyush M. Vaghela, aged 48 years, S/o. Manharbhai R. Vaghela,
Assistant Superintendent, Regional Passport Office,
Ahmedabad - 380 006, residing at M-14/84, Azad Apartment-I,
Near Azad Society, Himmatlal Park Load, Ambawadi,
Ahmedabad - 380 015.
SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.10.22 16:39:03+05'30'
3
O.A No. 180/00893/2019
10. Shri Ashok Nambiar, aged 52 years, S/o. K.V. Sankaran Nambiar,
Senior Superintendent, Regional Passport Office, Panampilly Nagar
PO, Ernakulam - 682 036.
11. Ms. Mini C.S., aged 52 years, D/o. C.A. Sakthidharan,
Senior Superintendent, Regional Passport Office,
Panampilly Nagar PO, Ernakulam - 682 036.
12. Ms. Seethalakshmi K.S., aged 49 years,
D/o. R. Sasidharan Nair, Senior Superintendent,
Regional Passport Office, Panampilly Nagar PO,
Ernakulam - 682 036.
13. Shri Sreekanth K., aged 45 years, S/o. Krishnan V.A.,
Senior Superintendent, Regional Passport Office,
Panampilly Nagar PO, Ernakulam-682 036. - Respondents
[By Advocates: Mr. N. Anilkumar, Sr. Panel Counsel (R1-3) and
Ms. Sreekala T.N. (R4-9)]
The Original Application having been heard on 30.06.2025, the
Tribunal 22.10.2025 delivered the following:
ORDER
Per: Justice Sunil Thomas, Judicial Member -
Both the applicants were directly recruited as Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in the year 1996. Later they were promoted as Upper Division Clerk (UDC) and thereafter, as Assistant Superintendent based on seniority with effect from 8.6.2015 and 22.5.2015 respectively. Annexure A3 is the Recruitment Rules known as "Ministry of External Affairs, Central Passport Organization (Group-B posts Gazetted & Non-Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.10.22 16:39:03+05'30' 4 O.A No. 180/00893/2019 2010". At that time, the post of Assistant Superintendent was known as "Assistant". Vacancies were filled up in the proportion of 50% by promotion, 25% by direct recruitment and 25% by Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE). For 50% promotion, the qualification prescribed was 10 years of regular service in the grade of UD clerk. However, at Note-1 in column 12, it was provided that the eligibility service shall continue to be 8 years in respect of persons holding post of UD Clerk on regular basis on the date of notification of the revised Recruitment Rules. The Recruitment Rules were notified on 13.12.2010. Regarding the 25% of LDCE promotion, the eligibility condition was UD Clerk with 8 years regular service in the grade and degree from a recognized university.
2. Applicants being qualified claim to be entitled for promotion quota as well as LDCE quota. It was alleged that though large number of vacancies in the cadre of Assistants/Assistant Superintendents were available and applicants were senior enough, they were not considered for promotion for want of eligibility service condition. Thereafter, Annexure A4 notification dated 4.3.2014 was issued in supersession of Annexure A3. In Annexure A4 also, the method of recruitment was 50% by promotion, 25% by promotion through LDCE and 25% by direct recruitment. Regarding promotion through SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.10.22 16:39:03+05'30' 5 O.A No. 180/00893/2019 LDCE, the qualification prescribed was UD clerks with 5 years regular service in the grade and Bachelor's degree from a recognized University or Association of Indian Universities, or recognized degrees of foreign universities.
3. Pursuant to Annexure A4, notification inviting applications for promotion against 25% of LDCE quota as issued as Annexure A5 dated 26.12.2014. Applicants claiming themselves to be qualified responded. Even before the written examination was conducted, the applicants were promoted against the 50% promotion quota by orders issued under Annexure A6 dated 15.6.2015 by the 2nd respondent. They took over the higher responsibilities on 8.6.2015 and 22.5.2015 respectively. Though written examination towards the LDCE was conducted on 30.8.2015, the applicants were not allowed to participate in the examination on the premise that they have already been promoted against 50% promotion quota. According to the applicants, in terms of Annexure A5, only those who have completed 5 years of service as on 1.1.2015 were eligible. It was consistent with Annexure A7 office memorandum issued by DoP&T dated 17.9.1988. Thereafter, the LDCE was conducted and candidates were promoted on different dates commencing from 12.10.2015. Several appointments were also made against SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.10.22 16:39:03+05'30' 6 O.A No. 180/00893/2019 direct recruitment quota.
4. Thereafter, Annexure A8 dated 22/25 April, 2016 seniority list of Assistant Superintendents/Superintendents/Senior Superintendents as on 1.4.2016 was published. The applicants were arrayed as serial Nos. 92 and 93 respectively, which according to the applicants, was consistent with their dates of promotion and seniority in the feeder cadre. The officers were requested to bring to the notice of the respondents, any factual error within the prescribed time limit. Thereafter, another seniority list showing the seniority position as on 1.4.2017 was published as Annexure A9 on 9.2.2018. The applicants were arrayed at serial Nos. 54 and 55. Both Annexures A8 and A9 were based on the date of entry into the grade/seniority in the feeder grade and according to the applicants consistent with the seniority Rules in force. While so, respondents issued another office memorandum as Annexure A10 dated 7.8.2019 by which the position of the applicant were brought down to serial No. 167 and 168 respectively and many others who were juniors in Annexures A8 and A9 came to be placed above the applicants. According to the applicants, no specific reason was shown for such a revision/alteration and no show cause notice was issued to the applicants who were prejudiced by such a revision. SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.10.22 16:39:03+05'30' 7 O.A No. 180/00893/2019
5. Raising objections to it, applicants submitted Annexures A11 and A12 representations. In the meanwhile, the applicants were informed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had reversed the law laid down in Union of India v. N.R. Parmar [(2012) 13 SCC 340] by the judgment of the Supreme Court in K. Meghachandra Singh & Ors. v. Ningam Siro & Ors. [(2020) 5 SCC 689] produced as Annexure A13.
6. According to the applicants, the seniority had not been finalized since it was subject to the outcome of any judgment or order of any court of law which have a bearing on the seniority of officers included in the list. The list was also not consistent with the law laid down in N.R. Parmar's case (supra) since the age of recruitment as regards the direct recruitment and LDCE promotees were wrongly determined. In the wake of change of above legal position the applicants submitted Annexures A14 and A15 representations. While so, they were served with Annexures A1 and A2 rejecting their representations Annexures A11 and A12. The final seniority list dated 28.11.2019 was published as Annexure A16. According to the applicant, it was finalized against the dictum laid down in Annexure A13 judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.10.22 16:39:03+05'30' 8 O.A No. 180/00893/2019
7. Aggrieved by the above, the applicants have approached this Tribunal seeking the following reliefs:
"(i) Call for the records leading to the issue of Annexure A1 and A2 and quash the same.
(ii) Declare that the applicants are entitled to have their seniority assigned vis-à-vis their counter parts recruited through direct recruitment and promotes through LDCE by applying the principle enunciated in Annexure A13 of the Hon'ble Apex Court;
(iii) Direct the respondents to determine the seniority vis-à-vis their counterpart by applying the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court Annexure A13 and grant them consequential benefits;
(iv) Declare that the direct recruit Assist Superintendents and the Assist Superintendents promoted through LDCE after the promotion of the applicants as Assist Superintendents are not entitled to seniority over the applicants and direct the respondents accordingly."
8. The respondents 1 to 3 filed a joint reply statement denying the various allegations and claims set up in the Original Application. It was contended that in accordance with the Government's instructions the crucial date for counting regular service rendered in any grade in the Central Passport organization is 1st April. Therefore, in view of the Recruitment Rules, 2010 (Annexure A3) UD clerks who are now Senior Passport Assistants including the applicants were eligible for promotion to the posts of Assistants (now Assistant Superintendent) as on 1.4.2018 against the promotion and LDCE quota on completing 8 years of regular service in the grade. Since the applicants had not completed 8 years of regular service on SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.10.22 16:39:03+05'30' 9 O.A No. 180/00893/2019 1.4.2015 they were not eligible for consideration for promotion against LDCE quota. It was stated that in accordance with Recruitment Rules of 2014 (Annexure A4) the vacancies of those posts were filled up as 50% by promotion, 25% by promotion through LDCE and remaining 25% by direct recruitment. It was stated that the process of conducting the LDCE started in 2014 immediately after the revision of the Recruitment Rules dated 4.3.2014 to fill up post of Assistants numbering 85 available against LDCE for the vacancy year 2014-2015. The applicants have not substantiated their claim that they were not allowed to appear in the LDCE. On the other hand, Ministry by its communication dated 4.8.2015 have clarified that the decision to appear in the LDCE, 2015 was the sole decision of the individuals. Further, they should have approached the Ministry at that time, if they were not issued with the hall tickets.
9. Several representations were received from the direct recruits of Assistant Superintendents recruited through SSCs/CGL, 2014 against the correction in the seniority list issued on 25.4.2016 and 9.2.2018 which were examined in consultation with the DoP&T. As per their advice, draft seniority list was released on 7.8.2019 after carrying out necessary corrections in the seniority list vide OM dated 25.4.2016 and 9.2.2018. SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.10.22 16:39:03+05'30' 10 O.A No. 180/00893/2019 Following the earlier seniority list on 1.4.2017 Ministry received number of representations from direct recruits claiming seniority over Assistant Superintendents promoted in May, 2015 from feeder grade and through LDCE held in August, 2015. Matter was referred to the DoP&T for advice. Accordingly, a draft seniority list was prepared based on DoP&T's instructions and guidelines on seniority and the methodology adopted was in accordance with their directions. The seniority was fixed in accordance with the DoP&T's instructions and guidelines on seniority issued by OM dated 11.11.2020 and OM dated 4.3.2014. Accordingly, it was sought that the Original Application may be dismissed.
10. A rejoinder was filed wherein the allegations in the reply statement were refuted. It was contended that the contention that the crucial date for counting the regular service in any grade in Central Passport organization was 1st April was misleading and factually untrue. The crucial date for determining the eligibility of service was 1st January of the vacancy year. This position was changed to 1st April of the vacancy year in Department's where APARs were maintained financial year wise only with effect from 1.4.2015 as evident from Annexure A17 OM dated 28.5.2014. The vacancy year of 2014-2015 was brought in by the respondents later, only to justify SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.10.22 16:39:03+05'30' 11 O.A No. 180/00893/2019 their stand in the reply to the representations filed. Had the circular for LDCE clearly mentioned the vacancy year for which the LDCE was to be held, the applicants could have been alerted of the consequences and ensured that they challenged their exclusion in the LDCE held in August, 2014. It was further stated that in the light of the declaration of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Meghachandra Singh's case (supra) it should have governed the field. It was further contended that the circular dated 4.3.2014 relied on by the applicants is no longer valid in the light of the judgment dated 19.11.2019 in K. Meghachandra Singh's case (supra). Accordingly, it was reiterated that the OA was sustainable and the claims of the applicants are sustainable.
11. An additional reply statement was filed affirming that the process of conducting LDCE commenced in 2014 to fill up vacancies for the vacancy year 2014-2015. DoP&T has not issued any fresh circular/instructions based on K. Meghachandra Singh's case (supra), it was stated.
12. Respondents Nos. 4 to 9 got themselves impleaded. Later respondents Nos. 10 to 13 were impleaded. Heard the learned counsel for the applicants, learned Senior Panel Counsel and the learned counsel for the private respondents. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that in the SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.10.22 16:39:03+05'30' 12 O.A No. 180/00893/2019 light of pendency of the matter relating to the ratio involved in K. Meghachandra Singh's case (supra) before the Larger Bench pursuant to the decision in Hariharan v. Harsh Vardhan Singh Rao (2022 SCC Online SC 1717), the issue regarding the seniority of the promotees vis-à-vis direct recruits as sought in relief No. (2) may be kept open and will confine to the inter se dispute between promotees and promotees by way of LDCE. This was recorded in proceeding dated 3.1.2014. At the time of final hearing also, the learned counsel confined his argument to inter se seniority between promotees and promotes by LDCE. He also confined his argument that vacancy year in so far as LDCE candidates was 2015-2016 and not 2014.
13. Essentially, the contention of the applicants is that Annexures A8 and A9 seniority lists wherein they were placed at serial Nos. 92 and 93 and at serial Nos. 54 and 55 respectively were in accordance with the Rules in force and was liable to be followed. It was contended that it was based on the date of entry into the grades/seniority in the feeder grade and was consistent with the law that was in existence at that point of time. It was further contended that the seniority list Annexures A8 and A9 remained settled and while so, the respondents issued Annexure A10 in which the position of the applicants were brought down considerably and many others SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.10.22 16:39:03+05'30' 13 O.A No. 180/00893/2019 who were juniors to them in Annexures A8 and A9 came to be placed above the applicants. No specific reasons were stated as to why the seniority already settled was being revised to the disadvantage of the applicants as indicated in Annexure A10. Annexure A10 was also not preceded by a show cause notice. It was finalized by Annexure A16 dated 28.11.2019.
14. It was contended that while the applicants were awaiting reply to Annexures A11 and A12 representations, Annexure A13 judgment in K. Meghachandra Singh's case (supra) came into force. The judgment specifically stated that the decision will not affect the inter se seniority already based on N.R. Parmar's case (supra) and the same is protected. This decision will apply prospectively except where the seniority was to be fixed under the relevant Rules from the date of vacancy/date of advertisement. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants was that the seniority has not been finalized as the same was subject to the outcome of any judgment or order of any court of law in any case which have bearing on the seniority of the officers included in the list. Seniority list was also not consistent with the law laid down in N.R. Parmar's case since the vacancy year as regards the direct recruitment and LDCE promotees was wrongly determined. It was contended that inter se seniority is to be determined only SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.10.22 16:39:03+05'30' 14 O.A No. 180/00893/2019 on the basis of date of entry in the cadre. Consequently, Annexures A14 and A15 representations were submitted.
15. The applicants have a further contention that they were not permitted to appear for the LDCE examination illegally as applicants were already promoted. However, thereafter, the examination was conducted and successful candidates were promoted. The refusal to grant permission to appear was not challenged at that time. At this distance of time, we are not inclined to entertain a challenge on the above issue.
16. Regarding the law of seniority, the respondents contended that in Meghachandra Singh's case (supra) the apex court was pleased to state that no one who was not born in the cadre can claim seniority and that was the law settled in a series of decisions of the Hon'ble apex court. According to the applicants this principle was based on the concept that there would be everlasting uncertainty in the matter of seniority of those who were already in the cadre. It was contended that the seniority among the promotees those promoted through LDCE became final and conclusive in the light of Annexures A8 and A9. Accordingly, applicants claimed to be seniors to those who were promoted through LDCE and appointed later than the applicants.
SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.10.22 16:39:03+05'30' 15 O.A No. 180/00893/2019
17. The specific contention of the respondents was that the cut off eligibility date for the purpose of promotions is 1st January of vacancy year. It was not first of February as suggested by respondents. To supplement this, the learned counsel for applicant placed reliance on Annexures A5 and A7. According to the counsel, both the above documents which have the force of law, categorically stated that cut off eligibility date was 1st January of vacancy year. Relevant portion of Annexure A5 dated 26.12.2014 reads as follows:
"2. According to CPO Recruitment Rules, 2014, the eligibility criteria for Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) for the post of Assistant (Group 'B' Non-gazetted) is five years of regular service in the grade of Upper Division Clerk and possession of a Bachelor's degree from a recognized University or Association of Indian Universities recognized degree from foreign Universities. The cut off date of determining eligibility for LDCE is the 1st day of January of the year in which the examination is held, if the examination is held in the first half of the year. Therefore, UDCs who will be completing five years of regular service as on 1.1.2015 can apply for the proposed LDCE."
Relevant portion of Annexure A7 dated 17.9.1998 is as follows:
"2. The matter has been reconsidered by the Government and in supersession of the existing instructions it has now been decided that the crucial date for determining eligibility of officers for promotion in case of financial year-based vacancy year would fall on January 1 immediately preceding such vacancy year and in the case of calendar year-based vacancy year, the first day of the vacancy year, i.e. January 1 itself would be taken as the crucial date irrespective of whether the ACRs are written financial year-wise or calendar year-wise. For the sake of illustration, for the panel year 2000-2001 (financial year), which covers the period from April 1, 2000 to march 31,2001, and the panel year 2000 (calendar year), which covers the period from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2000, the crucial date for the purpose of eligibility of the officer would be January 1, 2000 irrespective of whether ACRs are written financial year-wise or SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.10.22 16:39:03+05'30' 16 O.A No. 180/00893/2019 calendar year-wise."
18. In the reply statement, the stand of the respondents was that, the crucial date for counting of regular service rendered in any grade in the Central Passport Organization was 1st of April. It was stated that regarding LDCE promoted Assistant Superintendents, since the process of conducting LDCE started in 2014 they were considered against vacancy year 2014- 2015. According to respondents draft seniority list was prepared based on DoP&T's "instructions and guidelines on seniority" dated 4.3.2014 and vacancy year of direct recruits and LDCE was 2014 and they were arranged in the ratio of 1:1 according to the rotation of vacancies available between direct recruit and LDCE. Since the vacancy year of Assistant Superintendents promoted in May, 2015 from feeder post was 2015-2016 they were placed enbloc below direct recruits and LDCE promotees.
19. Annexures A1 and A2 are the replies given by the respondents wherein the circumstances that led to Annexure A10 and the reasons for bringing down the applicants in the seniority list are disclosed. Regarding the vacancy year of LDCE held in August, 2015 it was stated that the process of conducting LDCE was commenced in the year 2014 immediately after the revision of Recruitment Rules dated 4.3.2014. As per the previous SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.10.22 16:39:03+05'30' 17 O.A No. 180/00893/2019 RRs notified the eligibility to appear for the LDCE for SPA (erstwhile UDC) for promotion to the post of Assistant to 8 years which was subsequently reduced to 5 years in the RR dated 4.3.2014. All candidates who appeared for LDCE held in August, 2015 were holding the post of erstwhile UDC and had completed the minimum years of service to appear for LDCE with effect from 1.4.2014. Regarding the vacancy year of Assistant Superintendents recruited through SSC it was stated that as per the DoP&T OM dated 4.3.2014 the initiation of recruitment process against the vacancy year would be the date of sending of requisition for filling up of the vacancies to the recruiting agencies in the case of direct recruits recruited through SSC/CGL, 2014 and DR Assistant Superintendents joining against such requisition were against the vacancy year 2014-2015.
20. In answer to it, the learned counsel for the applicants vehemently contended that the stand taken by the respondents in Annexures A1 and A2 was totally inconsistent with the principles of seniority to be determined not only by the apex court but also by the order issued by DoP&T. According to the counsel Annexure A5 order produced by the applicant read with Annexure A7 issued by the DoP&T categorically stated that the cut off eligibility date for the purpose of promotion was 1st January of the vacancy SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.10.22 16:39:03+05'30' 18 O.A No. 180/00893/2019 year. It is not the 1st of April as suggested by the respondents. 1st of January is apparent from Annexure A5 wherein it is categorically stated only those who had completed 5 years of service as on 1.1.2015 would be eligible to be considered for promotion. Accordingly, it was contended that the concept of vacancy year would be available for the purpose of promotion and seniority those who are promoted under the LDCE quota became eligible only 1.1.2015 for the vacancy year 2015-2016. According to the applicant no candidates were available for promotion against LDCE quota vacancies upto 2015 even going by the stand of the respondents. The stand in Annexures A1 and A2 for assigning the seniority of those promoted through LDCE during October, 2015 is contrary to the directions of the DoP&T. Our attention was drawn to the decision of the Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 1091 of 2019 on the same dispute which ultimately set aside the ranking of the applicants in Annexure A16 dated 28.11.2019.
21. Treating the vacancy year of LDCE as 2014-2015 was vehemently attacked by the learned counsel for the applicant. The contention was that in the light of Annexures A5 and A7 the contentions of the Department that eligibility period is 1st of April is not sustainable. The specific pleading of the applicants on the strength of Annexures A5 and A7 in the Original SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.10.22 16:39:03+05'30' 19 O.A No. 180/00893/2019 Application and the rejoinder was not answered in the reply. The basis for the bare averment in the reply that cut off was 1st of April was not explained. Hence, we are inclined to accept the contention of the applicant. It is pertinent to note that applicants were promoted as Assistant Superintendents with effect from 8.6.2015 and 22.5.2015. Even the written examination for LDCE was conducted much thereafter, on 30.8.2015. Evidently, contention of the applicants that they being seniors to promotees by LDCE is only to be sustained. The seniority of the parties to the OA is liable to be recast as claimed and not in terms of Annexure A16. It is made clear that the issue in relation to direct recruits is kept open.
22. OA is allowed in part. Respondents 1 to 4 directed to pass appropriate orders refixing the seniority of promotees as above and pass orders within three months from the date of a copy of this order. No costs.
(Dated 22nd October, 2025)
V. RAMA MATHEW JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
SA
SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.10.22 16:39:03+05'30'
20
O.A No. 180/00893/2019
List of Annexures in Original Application No. 180/00893/2019 Annexure-A1- True copy of letter No. CDR-II/582/02/2016 dated 20.11.2019 issued from the office of the second respondent to the first applicant.
Annexure-A2- True copy of letter No. CDR-II/582/02/2016 dated 20.11.2019 issued from the office of the second respondent to the second applicant.
Annexure-A3- True copy of the Ministry of External Affairs, Central Passport Organization (Group B Posts - Gazetted and Non-Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 2010.
Annexure-A4- True copy of the notification No. GSR165€ dated 4.3.2014 - Central Passport Organization Assistant (Group B posts) Recruitment Rules, 2013.
Annexure-A5- True copy of the circular No. CDR-II/560/1/2013 dated 26th December, 2014 issued from the office of the second respondent. Annexure-A6- True copy of the memorandum No CDR-II/560/2/2015 dated 15th June, 2015 issued from the office of the second respondent. Annexure-A7- True copy of office memorandum issued by the DOPT No. 22011/3/98-Estt.(D) dated 17.9.1988.
Annexure-A8- True copy of office memorandum bearing No. CDR- II/582/02/2016 dated 22nd/25th April, 2016.
Annexure-A9- True copy of office memo bearing No. CDR- II/582/02/2016 dated 9th February, 2018.
Annexure-A10- True copy of office memo bearing No. CDR- II/582/08/2019 dated 7.8.2019 issued from the office of the second respondent.
Annexure-A11- True copy of representation dated 24.8.2019 submitted by the first applicant addressed to the second respondent. SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.10.22 16:39:03+05'30' 21 O.A No. 180/00893/2019 Annexure-A12- True copy of representation dated 18.8.2019 second applicant addressed to the second respondent.
Annexure-A13- True copy of the judgment in Civil Appeal No. 8833- 8835 of 2019 dated 19th November, 2019 (Meghachandra Singh Ors. v. Ningam Siro & Ors.).
Annexure-A14- True copy of first applicant's representation dated 24.11.2019 addressed to the second respondent.
Annexure-A15- True copy of representation 25.11.2019 submitted by the second applicant addressed to the second respondent. Annexure-A16- True copy of office memo bearing No. CDR- II/582/08/2019 dated 28.11.2019.
Annexure-A17- True copy of orders of DoP&T communicated under OM No. 22011/6/2013-Estt.(D) dated 28.5.2014.
Annexure-MA1- Copy of interim order dated 16.12.2019.
********* SEBASTIAN ANTONY 2025.10.22 16:39:03+05'30'