Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Regunathan S S/O Sreedharan vs The Senior Superintendent Of Post ... on 7 July, 2009
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM BENCH O.A. NO. 393/2008 Tuesday this the 7th day of July, 2009. C OR A M : HON'BLE MR. GEORGE PARACKEN, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. K. NOORJEHAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER Regunathan S S/o Sreedharan Postman, Varkala P.O. Residing at Thoppil S.R. House, Kizhuvilam PO, Attingal-695 014 .. Applicant By Advocate Mr. P.C. Sebastian Vs 1 The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices Thiruvananathapuram North Division Thiruvananthapuram-695 001 2 TheDirector General of Posts Dak Bhavan New Delhi. 3 Shri A. Shajahan,Postman, Varkala P.O. Varkala. 4 Union of India represdented by the Secretary to Govt. Of Indila Ministry of Communications Deplartment of Posts, New Delhi. ..Respondents By Advocate Mr.TPM Ibrahim Khan, SCGSC for R 1, 2 & 4 The Application having been heard on 24.6.2009 the Tribunal delivered the following : O R D E R
HON'BLE MRS. K. NOORJEHAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER The applicant is aggrieved by the promotion/posting of his junior as Mail Overseer in the supervisory cadre overlooking him.
2. According to the applicant, 3rd respondent and himself are working as Postmen at Varkala LSG Sub Office since 1988. They have been promoted to higher grade under TBOP scheme( Annexure A-1). The 3rd respondent is junior to the applicant in the Postman and TBOP cadres (Annexure A-2). According to the applicant, appointment to the posts of Mail Overseers, Overseer Postmen, Sorting Postman and Head Postman should be made by promotion of postmen and village postmen in the order of seniority. There are two posts of Mail Overseer attached to office of the Attingal Sub Division. Though the applicant submitted his willingness against one of the said posts he was not considered. In response to Annexure A-4 he submitted his willingness for posting as Mail Overseer Attingal Sub Division (Annexure A5). He legitimately believed that he would be selected as he was senior and otherwise eligible to be selected. But to his surprise the 3rd respondent was selected and appointed (Annexure A-6). Hence he filed this O.A. on the grounds that he has a better claim, the criterion for selection of the post of Mail Overseer is seniority-cum-fitness and while exercising discretionary power the authority cannot act according to his sweet will.
3. The respondents in their reply statement submitted that the posting of Mail Overseer at Attingal Sub Division was done strictly as per the existing rules. As per Rule 281 Chapter VIII of P & T Manual Vol. IV the appointing authority in his discretion can pass over any official whom he does not consider as a better choice for the post. The ACRs of the applicant were below average, contained certain entries which were adverse in nature. The seniority alone is not the criterion in the selection. Therefore there is nothing illegal in the selection of the 3rd respondent.
4. The applicant filed rejoinder and the respondents filed additional reply statement along with true copy of the ACRs of the applicant for the period from 1.4.2007 to 31.3.2008.
5. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and gone through the pleadings. The sum and substance of the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant being senior is bound to be selected to the post of Mail Overseer at the Attingal Sub Division on the ground of his seniority. The argument of the respondents on the other hand is that fitness was the only criterion for selection of the incumbent. The respondents considered the applicant and the 3rd respondent and as the ACRs of the applicant is only average and there are some adverse entries in the ACR of the applicant, the 3rd respondent was selected. 6 The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant and the 3rd respondent were placed in TBOP list after the first financial upgradation. TBOP is granted after a due process of selection, on the basis of the recommendation of DPC. TBOP can be permitted in situ, if sufficient number of supervisory posts are not available. The respondents have stated that the Mail Overseer is expected to assist the Inspecting Officer of the Sub division, to ensure smooth functioning of the 60 to 100 branch post offices placed under the latter's control, especially in delivery of mail, payment of Money Orders and financial transactions in Post Office Saving Bank. Therefore, out of the three officials, who volunteered for the post, the fittest official based on his work and conduct was selected. The applicant is not put to any financial disadvantage vis-a-vis the third respondent.
7. he learned counsel for the respondents brought to our notice order of this Tribunal in O.A. 692/06 (J. Anilraj Vs. Union of India and Others ) in support of the action of the respondents. We have gone through the order and find that it is exactly a similar case like that of the applicant in this O.A. The operative portion of the order is extracted below:
"9 The learned counsel for the applicant has argued that posting as a Mail Overseer amounts to promotion therefore, the matter should have been considered by the DPC and the instructions regarding consideration of ACRs, etc should have been followed. The applicant having no adverse entry and having no enquiry pending against him, should not have been overlooked for appointment. The learned counsel for the respondents argued that no DPC has been prescribed for promotion to the post of Mail Overseeer, suitabililty was the only criterion. As seen from the rule position, the averments of the respondents have to be accepted as only fitness was to be considered and in that regard in the dirscretion of the appointing authority oth the applicant and the 4th respondent were considered and he has exercised his discretion in favour of the 4th respondent. The action of the third respondent cannot be faulted on that ground as he acted in accordance with the rules which provides for such a discretion. Hence, no interference is considered necessary. The O.A. is dismissed. No costs."
Even though the applicant in the OA cited above was senior and had no adverse entry in the ACRs, his challenge against non-selection to the post of Mail Overseer was not successful.
8. The case of the applicant in the present O.A. is exactly identical with the applicant in O.A. 692/06. Accordingly, we follow the order of this Tribunal in O.A. 692/06 and dismiss this O.A. There shall be no order as to costs.
Dated 7th July, 2009.
K. NOORJEHAN GEORGE PARACKEN ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER kmn