Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Smt.Sheena George vs Senior Superintendent Of Post Offices on 30 August, 2013
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
O.A.No.716/2013
Friday , this the 30th day of August, 2013
C O R A M :
HON'BLE Dr.K.B.S.RAJAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Mr.K.GEORGE JOSEPH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Smt.Sheena George, D/o.Sri.George,
Multi Tasking Staff
Office of the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices
Aluva Division, Aluva, residing at Puthusserry House
Vengoor P.O, Perumbavoor, Pin - 683 546 ... Applicant
(By Advocate Mr.O.V Radhakrishnan,Sr. with Mrs.K.Radhamani Amma
and Mr.Antony Mukkath)
v e r s u s
1. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices
Aluva Division, Aluva - 683 101
2 Postmaster General
Central Region Kochi - 682 018
3. Chief Postmaster General
Kerala Circle,
Thiruvananthapuram - 695 033
4. Union of India, represented by its Secretary
Ministry of Communication and Information Technology
Dak Bhavan New Delhi - 11- 116 ... Respondents
(By advocate Mr.Sunil Jacob Jose, SCGSC)
This application having been heard on 30th August 2013 this
Tribunal on the same day delivered the following :-
O R D E R
BY HON'BLE Dr.K.B.S.RAJAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. The applicant, GDS MD, participated in the MTS examination on 27.01.2013 and was appointed as such. One more candidate viz, Ms.Anjali also secured equal marks, but it was the applicant herein who has been appointed as MTS. The said Ms.Anjali obtained through RTI Act a copy of the answer sheet and found that one question was wrongly evaluated. On pointing out the same, the respondents have issued show cause notice at Annexure A-5 asking the applicant to show cause as to why she be not reverted back as GDS MD. The applicant has, come up against the said show cause and sought the following reliefs:-
"(i) To declare that Annexure A-5 Memo dated 29.07.2013 is a nullity and is hit by Section 19(4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and therefore cancellation of appointment of the applicant as Multi Tasking Staff and relieving her from that post in implementation of Annexure A-5 Memo, is legally impermissible and untenable;
(ii) To call for the record leading to Annexure A-5 and to set aside the same;
(iii) To issue appropriate direction or Order directing the 1st respondent to allow the applicant to continue as Multi Tasking Staff, Office of the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Aluva Division without regard to Annexures A-5; "
2. At the time of hearing, counsel for the respondents submitted that the department has committed an error in not properly evaluating the answer sheet of Ms.Anjali and the same has caused this confusion. With a view to ensuring appointment of the said Ms.Anjali, notice had been issued to the applicant in this Original Application vide Annexure A-5. The applicant has been given a wrong promotion and as such, it is only appropriate that in her place the aforesaid Ms.Anjali be appointed who has secured more marks than the applicant.
3. In an another order of the same date, in O.A No.576/13, we had allowed the Original Application of the said Ms.Anjali. As such, the applicant in this O.A has to vacate the place of MTS in favour of the applicant in the other O.A.
4. Counsel for the applicant submitted that since it is not on account of any mistake of the applicant, she may be accommodated against any other future vacancy. This request of the applicant has been considered. When on account of any mistake of the official respondents a person has suffered a loss and in the process of rectifying the loss the same results in loss to another individual who had been enjoying an unintended benefit, if any, there is absolutely no point in justifying the wrong. Thus the respondents' action cannot be faulted with. As such, the applicant cannot be continued as MTS. In so far as the request of the counsel for the applicant is concerned, the same may not be feasible as the same would result in filling up of posts more than the notified vacancies which are not permissible as per an Apex Court decision. However, it is open to the respondents to sort out the same to accommodate the applicant in any other vacancy. With the above observation, the Original Application is disposed of. No cost.
K.GEORGE JOSEPH Dr.K.B.S.RAJAN ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER sv