Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Chandan Singh Bisht vs D/O Post on 13 May, 2026
OA No. 664 of 2013
(Reserved on 11.05.2026)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD.
Allahabad, this the 13th day of May, 2026
Original Application No. 664 of 2013
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (Judicial)
Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (Administrative)
Chandan Singh Bisht, aged about 33 years, S/o Sri Bahadur Singh Bisht,
Resident of Village Badri, Renikhet, District Almora; presently posted as Post
Master Grade-I, Bhikiyasen, Ranikhet, District Almora.
....Applicant
By Advocate: Shri M.K. Upadhyay
Versus
1. Union of India through Director General, Department of Posts, Dak
Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi.
2. Assistant Director General (DE), Department of Posts, Dak
Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi.
3. Assistant Director (Rectt.), Department of Posts, Office of Chief
Post Master General, Uttarakhand Circle, Dehradun.
....Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Raghvendra Pratap Singh
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (Administrative):
Shri M.K. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Raghvendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondent are present.
2. By means of this OA, the applicant has sought the following reliefs :
" (a) Issue or order or direction setting aside the order dated 22.12.2011 and 1.8.2012 passed by the respondents as contained in Annexure No. 1 and 2 to this original application.
(b) Issue an order or direction to the respondents that the Paper No. III of the applicant in the IP Examination-2009 re-evaluated by an independent examiner and in case he obtains the qualifying marks, permit the applicant to join on the vacancy of Inspector of Posts in Uttarakhand from the date when the candidates were permitted for the IP Examination-2009 within time frame.
RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 1 of 8 OA No. 664 of 2013
(c) Issue an order or directions to the respondents to allow all the consequential benefits from the date the candidates were allowed to join on the post of Inspector of Posts with interest @ 18% per annum.
(d) Issue such other order or direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal deems just and proper protecting the rights and interest of the applicant in the circumstances of the instant case.
(e) Award costs of the Original Application in favour of the applicant."
3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant has been working in the department as Postmaster Grade-II in Uttarakhand. The next promotion from the cadre of Postal Assistant is Inspector of Posts which is governed by Rule 279 of P&T Manual Vol. IV, according to which the said post is filled by Departmental Examination held by the respondent No.1. The applicant appeared in the Inspector of Posts Examination, 2009, held on 4th to 6th January 2010, and attempted all five papers satisfactorily. The result was declared on 16.07.2010 in which the applicant and more than 250 candidates from Uttar Pradesh were declared unsuccessful because they failed to secure minimum qualifying marks in Paper No. III. None of the candidate in State of U.P. was declared pass in Paper No. III. It is submitted that Paper No. III was to be attempted with books and the question was to be answered by copying the same from the books. In the present case, the applicant submits that their Paper No. III deserves to be re-evaluated by an independent competent authority so that he can be assigned appropriate marks for the question they had attempted in Paper No. III. The applicant submitted a detailed representation on 08.11.2011 seeking re-evaluation of Paper No. III and extension of benefits granted in similar cases decided by the CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No.3559 of 2010 and 801 of 2011. However, the representation was rejected by the respondents on 22.12.2011 in a mechanical manner. Later, on 27.03.2012, the respondents re-evaluated Paper No. III of certain applicants in other O.As., but denied the same relief to the present applicant. Aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents, the applicant has filed the O.A. No. 735 of 2012 before this Tribunal. This Tribunal vide order dated 25.05.2012 disposed of the O.A. RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 2 of 8 OA No. 664 of 2013 with direction to respondent No. 1 to decide the pending representation of the applicant taking into account the order dated 16.12.2009 passed by the Principal Bench in O.A. No. 1551 of 2009 and the order dated 01.02.2012 passed by Lucknow Bench in O.Α. No. 378 of 2010 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. Thereafter, the respondents passed an order dated 01.08.2012 stating that even after reassessment/fresh evaluation, the applicant did not secure qualifying marks in Paper No. III and therefore could not be declared successful in the examination. The applicant submits that the order dated 01.08.2012 has been passed in violation of the directions issued by the Tribunal and that Paper No. III deserves independent re-evaluation by a competent authority. Hence, this OA.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the order passed by Principal Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.1551 of 2009 decided on 15.12.2009. The operative portion of the aforesaid order is reproduced as under :-
"In view of the above discussion, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that the interest of justice would be met if the present OA is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.2 to get the answer written by the applicant to Question No.3 of Paper-IV (Part-'B') of the said Examination re- evaluated through an independent examiner who should be an officer not lower than the rank of Joint Secretary and after such re-evaluation, in case it is found that the applicant has obtained minimum 50% marks in the said Paper and is otherwise eligible in all respects as per rules and in accordance with law, to issue follow up orders with regard to the applicant's result. This may be done within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Ordered accordingly. No costs."
5. Learned counsel for the applicant also relied upon the order passed by Lucknow Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.378 of 2010 decided on 01.02.2012. The operative portion of the aforesaid order is reproduced as under :-
"Finally, in view of the above, the present O.A. is decided in favour of the applicant with a direction to the Respondent No.1 to get the answer no.2 and answer no.3 re-evaluated through an independent examiner RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 3 of 8 OA No. 664 of 2013 not below the rank of Joint Secretary and after such re-evaluation, in case the applicant is found to have obtained minimum 50% marks in Paper-IV Part-'B' and is otherwise eligible in all respect as per rules then follow-up orders may also be issued with regard to applicant's result. This exercise may be conducted within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No order as to costs."
6. The respondents have refuted the claim of the applicant by filing a detailed counter affidavit and have submitted that the applicant in the present OA as a Post Master Grade-I, Bhikiyasen Almora Division in Uttrakhand Circle, previously filed an OA No.735 of 2012 before this Tribunal for seeking direction to decide his representation dated 08.11.2011 pending before the Respondents. In compliance of the order of this Tribunal, the competent authority has already ordered for re-assessment/fresh valuation of his answer scripts of Paper-III of IP Examination 2009 and even after such an exercise, the applicant could not secure minimum qualifying marks in Paper- III deserving selection for the post of Inspector Posts IP Examination 2009. Accordingly, a reasoned and speaking order was passed on 01.08.2012. The applicant remaining silent for more than 8 months has now come up with this OA disputing the Speaking order. It is submitted that the original answer scripts of the applicant was weeded out and destroyed as the retention period prescribed expired long back and that too after disposal of the representation by a Speaking Order. There is a lot of inordinate delay in filing this Original Application. There is no further provision for re-valuation. It is submitted that though the Question paper in Paper-III is to be answered with the aid of the Books, nowhere it is prescribed that the replies are to be copied from the relevant books. The books are only meant for reference. It is further submitted that the applicant belongs to Uttarakhand circle, and he has no business to plead for candidates who appeared from IP examination 2009 from UP Circle. However, Ajay Singh and 8 others and Shri Rajesh Singh filed Original applications in Principal Bench, and in accordance with the directions of the Tribunal, their representations were examined. The RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 4 of 8 OA No. 664 of 2013 Competent authority, in their cases also got them re-assessed/valued through on Independent Examiner, and thereafter, 3 candidates were declared qualified. It is also submitted that in compliance of the order of this Tribunal dated 25.05.2012, the Competent Authority examined the representation carefully and keeping in view of the directions of Tribunal, and to maintain, transparency, and to have better appreciations of the facts, ordered for sending the original answer script of the above applicant to an independent Examiner for reassessment/fresh valuation keeping in view of the key provided along with the grievances expressed by the applicant in his Representation. Even after such exercise, he could not secure marks, which led, rejection of his representation by giving detailed and cogent reasons. It is submitted that the speaking order was passed on logical reasons and gave a detailed account of examination of his representation, report of an, Independent examiner, that being the case, it cannot be called illegal, or arbitrary. On the basis of above submission, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted to dismiss the OA as devoid of merit.
7. We have heard the rival submissions and gone through the record available in this OA.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that paper III of the Departmental Examination held for the promotion to Inspector of Posts in the year 2009 has not been evaluated fairly even in the reassessment and the same has not been done as per the directions of this Tribunal. Both the orders dated 16.12.2009 passed by the Principal Bench in O.A. No.1551 of 2009 and dated 01.02.2012 passed by the Lucknow Bench in O.A. No.378/2010 as per which the representation of the applicant was directed to be decided have clear instructions to 're-evaluate through an independent RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 5 of 8 OA No. 664 of 2013 examiner who should be an officer not lower than the rank of Joint Secretary.
9. In this case, the independent examiner is not as per the directions given by the Principal Bench and the Lucknow Bench of this Tribunal in the aforesaid O.As. In addition to this, it was improper on part of the respondents' department to weed out the records of the answer sheet without taking time to satisfactorily verify about the pendency/filing of any legal suit in connection to the evaluation knowing fully well about its possibility given the circumstances in the matter.
10. Similar issued was decided by this Tribunal in OA No.18 of 2013. The relevant portion of the order in the said OA is reproduced as below :-
"The applicant has argued that paper III of the Departmental Examination held for the promotion to Inspector of Posts in the year 2009 has not been evaluated fairly even in the reassessment and the same has not been done as per the directions of this Tribunal. Both the orders dated 16.12.2009 passed by the Principal Bench in O.A. No.1551 of 2009 and dated 01.02.2012 passed by the Lucknow Bench in O.A. No.378/2010 as per which the representation of the applicant was directed to be decided have clear instructions to 're-evaluate through an independent examiner who should be an officer not lower than the rank of Joint Secretary. The independent examiner in the present case is JAG officer which is below the rank of the Joint Secretary. Thus, while the direction of the Tribunal in O.A./731/2012 has been complied with by deciding the representation of the applicant, yet the rank of independent examiner is not as per the directions given by the Principal Bench and the Lucknow Bench of this Tribunal in the aforesaid O.As. Rationalizing the reassessment through an officer below the grade of Joint Secretary on the basis of the rank of the applicant in this O.A. in comparison with the rank of the applicant of the aforesaid OA decided by the Principal bench is not justifiable given that no such reasoning has been assigned by this Tribunal in its direction and the respondents have on their own have assumed that a JAG officer would be suitable in the case of the applicant. Admittedly, RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 6 of 8 OA No. 664 of 2013 the marks of the applicant has increased from 29 to 36 after the reassessment/ fresh valuation which shows that the paper was not examined properly the first time itself and, therefore, the only drawback that remains is the rank of the independent examiner being below that of Joint Secretary. In addition to this, it was improper on part of the respondents' department to weed out the records of the answer sheet without taking time to satisfactorily verify about the pendency/filing of any legal suit in connection to the evaluation knowing fully well about its possibility given the circumstances in the matter.
9. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 04.07.2012 is hereby set aside and even though a considerably long period of about 13 years has elapsed since the filing of this O.A. and the paper sought to be re-assessed pertains to the year 2010 which has been weeded out. yet, keeping in view the illegality and probability of injustice done the applicant in assessment/reassessment and evaluation/fresh valuation of the paper in question, the applicant is hereby directed to submit the answer sheet of paper III as annexed in the O.A. along with a representation detailing all his points within a period of fifteen days from the date of this order and thereafter, the respondents shall re- evaluate the applicant's answer sheet in paper III through an independent examiner who should be an officer not lower than the rank of Joint Secretary to the Government of India and pass a fresh order. In case the applicant qualifies as a result, he should also be granted all consequential benefits including notional promotion, if due, completing the aforesaid exercise within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the representation from the applicant as directed."
11. In view of the above discussions, the OA deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The impugned orders dated 22.12.2011 and 01.08.2012 are quashed and set aside even though a considerably long period of about 13 years has elapsed since the filing of this O.A. Even the paper sought to be re-evaluated pertains to the year 2010 which according to respondents has been weeded out, yet, keeping in view the illegality and probability of injustice done to the applicant in assessment/reassessment and evaluation/fresh valuation of the paper in question, the applicant is hereby directed to submit the answer sheet of paper III along with a RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA Page 7 of 8 OA No. 664 of 2013 representation detailing all his points within a period of fifteen days from the date of this order and thereafter, the respondents shall re-evaluate the applicant's answer sheet in paper III through an independent examiner who should be an officer not lower than the rank of Joint Secretary to the Government of India and pass a fresh order. In case the applicant qualifies as a result, he should also be granted all consequential benefits including notional promotion, if due, completing the aforesaid exercise within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the representation from the applicant as directed. No order as to costs.
12. All MAs pending in this O.A. also stand disposed off.
(Mohan Pyare) (Justice Om Prakash VII)
Member(Administrative) Member(Judicial)
RKM/
RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA
Page 8 of 8