Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Karambir vs D/O Post on 5 March, 2026
1 (OA No. 1119/2019)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
Reserved on :13.02.2026
Pronounced on :05.03.2026
OA No. 060/1119/2019
HON'BLE SH. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MRS. ANJALI BHAWRA,MEMBER(A)
Karambir aged about 49 years, son of Hardwari Lal
resident of village Mudlana, Tehsil Gohana, District
Sonepat-131306, now posted as Gramin Dak Sewak
(circle -1) Group C
.......Applicant
(By Advocate : Sh. Vijay Kumar Singh)
VERSUS
1. Union of India, through its Secretary Ministry of
Communication and IT, Department of Post, Dak Bhawan,
New Delhi-110116.
2. The Chief Post Master General, Ambala Circle, Ambala-
134003.
3. The Superintendent, Post Offices, Sonepat-131001.
4. Satish Kumar GDSMD, Behalba, now posted as Postman,
head office, Rohtak-124001.
5. Kuldeep Singh, Branch Post Master, GDS Chapra, now
postman, MDG, Gohana-131301.
6. Pardeep Kumar GDS, MC, Nizampur, now postman, head
office, Sonepat-131001.
7. Pawan Kumar C/o Post Master, General, Haryana Division,
Ambala-134003.
..............Respondents
(By Advocate: Sh. K.K. Thakur with Sh. Jaskirat Singh)
NEERU DOUGALL 2026.03.30 17:19:05+05'30'
2 (OA No. 1119/2019)
ORDER
Per: SH. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR MEMBER (J):
1. The present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief(s):-
(i) That the OA be accepted and the notification dated 07.06.2016 may kindly be set aside and action of the respondents in denying appointment to the applicant to the post of postman and re-advertising the said post be declared illegal and thus the same may kindly be set aside.
(ii)) That the respondents may kindly be directed to give appointment to applicant to the post of postman as he is the successful candidate.
2. The facts as encapsulated in the present Original Application are that the Department of Posts issued a notification dated 07.06.2016 for the Postman examination scheduled on 17.07.2016, inviting applications from Multitasking Staff (MTS) and Gramin Dak Sewak (GDS) employees of Sonepat Division under revised recruitment rules (Annexure O-1). The notification provided category-wise vacancies and stated that unfilled vacancies in one division could be offered to candidates of other divisions in the Circle based on merit. Eligibility required five years of regular GDS service as on NEERU DOUGALL 2026.03.30 17:19:05+05'30' 3 (OA No. 1119/2019) 01.01.2016, with upper age limits of 50 years for OC, 53 years for OBC, and 55 years for SC candidates. As per Annexure-A, 50% of posts were to be filled by promotion and 50% by direct recruitment. Ten SC posts were notified across Gurgaon (2), Hissar (1), Karnal (5), and Rohtak (2).
3. The applicant states that he was not informed about the result of the examination held on 17.07.2016. He filed an RTI application on 01.08.2016 seeking details of the result, answer sheet, marks obtained, and selected candidates. Between 10.08.2016 and 07.09.2016, he received replies and copies of documents. Through RTI information, he learned that Ramphal was selected against an SC vacancy with 52 marks, and later that Pawan Kumar, who secured 55 marks, was declared selected against the single SC vacancy as per the joint merit list communicated on 17.07.2017.
4. The applicant alleges discrepancies between his answer sheet and result sheet. While the answer sheet indicated that he had passed, the result sheet showed him as unqualified (Annexures O-2 and O-3). NEERU DOUGALL 2026.03.30 17:19:05+05'30' 4 (OA No. 1119/2019) He submitted representations dated 08.10.2017 and 28.11.2017, followed by a legal notice dated 12.01.2018 (Annexures O-4 to O-6), but received no satisfactory response. He previously filed OA No. 060/01770/2018, which was withdrawn on 15.10.2018 with liberty to file a fresh petition (Annexure O-7).
5. As per letter dated 15.09.2016 (Annexure O-8), only one SC candidate was declared qualified in Rohtak Division despite two SC vacancies. The notification allowed unfilled vacancies to be offered to candidates of other divisions based on merit. The applicant claims he secured 45 marks, equal to another selected candidate, and should have been considered. He also challenges the selection of certain OBC candidates, alleging they did not meet the prescribed minimum qualifying marks in Part C as per the exam pattern (Annexure O-9).
6. The applicant further questions the selection of Pawan Kumar, stating that no such person is posted in Sonepat Division and that relevant details were concealed (Annexure O-10). He contends that the NEERU DOUGALL 2026.03.30 17:19:05+05'30' 5 (OA No. 1119/2019) selection process contained irregularities, contradictions in evaluation, and improper application of qualifying criteria, resulting in wrongful denial of his promotion.
7. The respondents have contested the claim of the applicant by filing a written statement. It is submitted that the respondent department issued a notification dated 07.06.2016 (Annexure O-1) for filling the post of Postman through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE). The examination was conducted on 17.07.2016 at Ambala. The recruitment was divided into two streams -- 50% from MTS through departmental examination and 50% from Gramin Dak Sevaks (GDS) through competitive examination.
8. The applicant, Shri Karambir, GDS Mundlana, Sonipat Division, was issued Roll No. SPT/Postman/2016- 17/006. The result was declared on 27.07.2016. He secured 45 marks and was declared "Non-Qualified"
as per the result proceedings dated 27.07.2016.
Since he belonged to the SC category, his NEERU DOUGALL 2026.03.30 17:19:05+05'30' 6 (OA No. 1119/2019) candidature was considered against SC vacancies only.
9. As per the vacancy position, only one SC post was available. The list of qualified SC candidates is annexed as Annexure R-5, and the final result showing selected candidates under OC, OBC, SC and PH categories is annexed as Annexure R-6. The allotment of selected candidates to different divisions is annexed as Annexure R-7.
10. Against the lone SC vacancy, Respondent No. 07, Pawan Kumar, secured 55 marks, which was higher than the applicant's 45 marks. Therefore, on merit basis, Pawan Kumar was selected and allotted the post, while the applicant was not selected.
11. The department has submitted that the selection process was conducted strictly as per rules and merit. Since the applicant secured fewer marks and there was only one SC vacancy, his claim lacks merit, and the Original Application is liable to be dismissed.
12. The applicant did not file any rejoinder.
NEERU DOUGALL 2026.03.30 17:19:05+05'30' 7 (OA No. 1119/2019)
13. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have carefully gone through the pleadings on record.
14. The learned counsel for the applicant subits that the applicant is at Sr. No. 4 in the merit list of the earlier notification and all the three candidates above from the applicant have joined to some other posts, due to which applicant No. 1 is in the merit list and despite giving appointment to applicant to the post of Postman, the respondents have re-advertised the post which is totally illegal.
15. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted position that the recruitment in question was conducted pursuant to notification dated 07.06.2016 under the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination for the post of Postman. The applicant participated in the said examination and secured 45 marks. It is also not in dispute that against the lone SC vacancy, Respondent No. 7, Pawan Kumar, secured 55 marks and was selected on the basis of higher merit. The applicant has not been NEERU DOUGALL 2026.03.30 17:19:05+05'30' 8 (OA No. 1119/2019) able to place on record any cogent material to establish that the selection of the said candidate was contrary to the notified rules or that the evaluation process suffered from any illegality or mala fide.
16. The contention of the applicant that certain candidates had joined other posts and, therefore, he ought to have been offered appointment, is not substantiated by any rule or provision which mandates automatic appointment of the next candidate in the merit list in the facts of the present case. The record reflects that only one SC vacancy was available and the same stood filled strictly in accordance with merit. The plea regarding discrepancies in the answer sheet and result sheet has also not been supported by any credible evidence to demonstrate material irregularity affecting the outcome.
17. It is a settled proposition of law that in matters of selection, the scope of judicial review is limited to examining the decision-making process and not the decision itself, unless the same is shown to be arbitrary, discriminatory, or in violation of statutory NEERU DOUGALL 2026.03.30 17:19:05+05'30' 9 (OA No. 1119/2019) provisions. In the present case, no such infirmity has been established. The applicant, having secured lesser marks than the selected candidate, cannot claim appointment as a matter of right.
18. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no merit in the present Original Application. The same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
(ANJALI BHAWRA) (RAMESH SINGH THAKUR)
Member (A) Member (J)
ND*
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
NEERU DOUGALL 2026.03.30 17:19:05+05'30'