Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
D.Saritha vs Union Of India on 1 September, 2008
IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH HYDERABAD Original Application No. 1223/2002 Date of Order : 01.09.2008 Between: D.Saritha ... Applicant And 1.Union of India, through Director General of Posts, Department of Posts, New Delhi. 2.Chief Post Master General, Andhra Pradesh Circle, Hyderabad. 3.Superintendent of Post Offices, Kurnool Postal Division, Kurnool. 4.Superintendent of Post Offices, Nandyal Postal Division, Nandyal. ... Respondents Counsel for the applicant ... Mr.M.V.Krishna Mohan Counsel for the respondents ... Mr.B.N.Sharma CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice P.Lakshmana Reddy ... Vice Chairman Hon'ble Mr. R.Santhanam ... Member (Admn.) ORAL ORDER
{As per Hon'ble Mr. R.Santhanam, member (Admn.)} Heard Mr.M.V.Krishna Mohan, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.M.C.Jacob representing MR.B.N.Sharma, learned standing counsel for the respondents.
2. The applicant in this OA is aggrieved by her non-selection to the post of Postal Assistant in the year 2001.
3. A notification for recruitment to the post of Postal Assistant was issued vide Chief Postmaster General letter No.RE/1-22/DR/2000 dated 13.09.2001 for the year 2000-2001. The method of selection prescribed in the notification was based on DG post letter No.60-36/93SPB-I, dated 28.02.1995. According to the scheme, a merit list of candidates was to be drawn up on the basis of :
i)marks upto 40% weightage at 10+2/12 class examination.
ii)5 marks for knowledge of typing at 30 w.p.m. And 5 marks to candidates for Date Entry qualification in computers.
The candidates claiming the knowledge of typewriting and computer were required to produce the necessary certificates from a coaching institute. A merit list was required to be prepared on the basis of marks awarded in each of the three component, and the list was to contain the names upto 5 times the number of vacancies announced. After the list was drawn-up, the candidates were to be subjected to a test and an interview.
4. There were two vacancies, one under unreserved category and one for OBC. The applicant belongs to UR category. As per certificates she secured the following marks :
Name of the Course Total Marks % of Marks 40% of total marks Intermediate 531 53.1 22.24 Degree (B.Com.) 978 61.11 24.44
5. It is the case of the applicant that when she had applied earlier in the year 1995 no weightage was given for the typing skills and this time also the respondents had not taken into account her typing qualification. It is seen from the reply filed by the respondents that the applicant had secured more marks in her Degree qualification then in her Intermediate examination and therefore 40% weightage of the marks secured by her in the Degree qualification was given which came to 24.44 and another 5 marks were given for typing. As the applicant did not submit any certificate regarding her computer skills no marks were given under that category. Therefore, the total marks secured by the applicant for considering her in the zone of consideration are 29.44. As per the notification for every vacancy 5 times the number of candidates were to be considered. Accordingly for the one unreserved vacancy to which the applicant had applied, 5 candidates were considered whose application numbers and marks are given below :
Application No. Total Marks 1.086 45.24 2.030 43.52 3.202 43.36 4.143 42.32 5.211 42.04
6. Since the applicant secured only 29.44 marks she did not figure in the top 5 candidates who were permitted to appear for the aptitude test for recruitment of Postal Assistants. Therefore, there is no merit in the claim of the applicant that she should be considered for selection since the selection has been considered as per rules.
7. It is evident that the applicant has not been able to make out a case for selection to the post of Postal Assistant. The OA is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
( R.SANTHANAM) (P.LAKSHMANA REDDY) MEMBER (ADMN.) VICE CHAIRMAN Dated : 1st September, 2008 (Dictated in Open Court)