Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
Smt. E. Bhuvaneshwari - Oa 458/ 2008 vs Union Of India on 9 February, 2009
IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH AT HYDERABAD O.A No. 458 & 525 OF 2008 DATE OF ORDER: THE 9TH FEBRUARY, 2009 Between:
1. Smt. E. Bhuvaneshwari - OA 458/ 2008 D/o E. Subramanyam R/o Vikruthamala Village Papanaidupeta Post Chittoor District 517526.
2. Shri P. Karunakar S/o P. Sambaiah R/o Vikruthamala Village Papanaidupeta Post Chittoor District 517526. ... Applicants And
1. Union of India Rep. by Director General Department of Posts Sansadmarg, New Delhi.
2. The Chief Postmaster General A.P. Circle, Daksadan Abids, Hyderabad.
3. The Director of Postal Services O/o Postmaster General Kurnool Region, Kurnool.
4. The Superintendent of Post Offices Tirupathi Division, Tirupathi Chitoor District.
5. Kum. N. Arunalatha D/o Shri Natarajan H.No. 18/ 138, Jyothinagar Renigunta, Chittoor District. ... Respondents Counsel for Applicants : Mrs. G. Rajani Devan, Advocate Counsel for Respondents : Mr. G. Jayaprakash Babu, SCGSC Mr. M. Venkanna for R-5.
1. Kum. N. Arunalatha - OA 525/ 2008 D/o Natarajan R/o 18/ 138, Jyothinagar Renigunta Chittoor District 517526. ... Applicant And
1. Union of India Rep. by Director General Department of Posts Sansadmarg, New Delhi.
2. The Chief Postmaster General A.P. Circle, Daksadan Abids, Hyderabad.
3. The Postmaster General Kurnool Region, Kurnool.
4. The Superintendent of Post Offices Tirupathi Division, Tirupathi Chitoor District.
5. P. Hemakshi D/o late P. Sambaiah Vikruthamala Village Papanaidupeta Post, Chittoor District. ... Respondents Counsel for Applicants : Mrs. M. Venkanna, Advocate Counsel for Respondents : Mrs. Y. Ratna Prabha, ACGSC Mr. M. Krishna Devan for R-5.
Coram :
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Lakshmana Reddy, Vice Chairman The Hon'ble Mr. R. Santhanam, Member (Admn.) (Order per Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Lakshmana Reddy, VC) As the respective applicants in both these OAs are claiming appointment to the same post of Grameena Dak Sevak Branch Post Master (GDSBPM), Madibaka Branch Office, we consider it expedient to dispose of these two applications by a common order.
2. The relevant facts which led to filing of these two applications are the following:
A GDSBPM of Madibaka Branch office in Tirupathi Division of Kurnool range became vacant on account of resignation of the incumbent by name, Shri M. Mani for the post on 11.5.2007. By then, there was a shortfall of the candidates belonging to the SC, ST and backward classes among the candidates holding the post of GDSBPM in the division when compared to the percentage of reservation allocated to those communities as per the reservation policy of the Government. Though 59 posts are to be filled up by candidates belonging to SC community, there were only 38 posts occupied by the SC community and thus there was a shortfall of 7.1% in respect of SC category. Similarly, there was a shortfall of 2 and odd percent in ST category and 4 and odd percent in the OBC category. As the shortfall was more in respect of SC community, the vacancy of EDBPM of Madibaka was decided to be filled up by SC category candidate. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Thirupati Division issued notification on 29.10.2007 inviting applications from the eligible candidates for selection to the post of GDSBPM of Madibaka stating that the vacancy is reserved for SC category but if there are no three effective applications from the SC category, it will be offered to ST category and if there are no three effective applications from both SC and ST categories, it will be offered to OBC category and if there are still no three effective applications from the SC, ST and OBC categories, it will be offered to OCs. In the said notification, the educational qualifications and other eligibility conditions are mentioned. It is further mentioned therein that the applications should be sent in sealed covers by registered post/ speed post by mentioning on the top of the cover APPLICATION FOR THE POST OF BRANCH POSTMASTER, MADIBAKA BO A/W PAPANAIDUPET S.O. and that those sealed covers will be opened on 5.12.2007 at 15.00 hours in the presence of the applicants and that all the applicants should attend at the office of Superintendent of Post Offices with their original certificates for verification, failing which the applications will be rejected. The said notification was published by way of tom tom in the village and also by way of affixing the notification in the notice boards of all the post offices in the Thirupati Division.
3. In pursuance of the said notification, the Superintendent of Post Offices received applications from the following 10 candidates:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sl.No. Name of the candidates Community 1) R. Surekha Rani SC 2) P. Hemakshi OC 3) N. Arunalatha SC 4) E. Bhuvaneswari OC 5) P. Karunakar OC 6) P. Lakshmamma OC 7) D. Chandramohan SC 8) I. Haribabu SC 9) P. Munendra BC 10) E. Muniraja OC
Out of them, only the first 5 candidates attended for the interview on 5.12.2007 and the candidates shown against Sl. Nos. 6 to 10 supra remained absent. The sealed covers of only those who attended for the interview were opened on 5.12.2007 and found 2 SCs & 3 OCs. As the Superintendent of Post Offices was retiring shortly within a period of six months, the entire file relating to selection was sent to the Regional Office for completing the selection process. After the new incumbent, Shri T.R. Prabhakara Rao joined as Superintendent of Post Offices at Tirupati, the Regional Office, Kurnool returned the entire file with the direction to finalize the selection according to the GDS Rules in force. Thereafter the new incumbent opened the remaining sealed covers in order to know whether there are three effective applications from the SC community as the post is reserved for reserved category and found four applications from SC community and on that basis, selection process started. Out of 5 candidates attended for interview on 5.12.2007, R. Surekha Rani belonging to SC community obtained higher marks of 326 other than Hindi in SSC but as she failed to produce the original SSC marks, she was not considered. The other SC candidate is N. Arunalatha, the applicant in OA 525/ 2008 who got 278 marks other than Hindi but she passed SSC compartmentally. As she is the only remaining SC candidate among the five attended for interview, after excluding R. Surekha Rani who failed to produce the SSC marks, the Superintendent of Post Offices provisionally selected N. Arunalatha for the post of BPM, Madibaka and directed N. Arunalatha to secure accommodation at the village, Madibaka vide office letter dated 4.6.2008. Accordingly, on 9.6.2008, N. Arunalatha secured accommodation and intimated the same to the Superintendent of Post Offices by her letter dated 9.6.2008. Along with the letter she enclosed the concerned letter of the owner of the house from which N. Arunalatha took the house on rent for locating the branch office.
4. While so, P. Hemakshi who belong to OC and secured 268 marks in SSC in his first attempt itself filed OA 338/ 2008 on 10.6.2008 contending that as there were only two SC candidates appeared for the interview, the reserved post shall be thrown open for OC candidates and that if it is thrown open to OC category, he will be the next candidate who is meritorious among the candidates who appeared for interview on 5.12.2007. According to him, though he secured less marks than N. Arunalatha, as he passed in the first attempt whereas Arunalatha passed compartmentally, he is to be treated as meritorious as per the conditions of notification than Arunalatha and further, Arunalatha has not produced the caste certificate in the prescribed form and therefore, she has to be treated as OC candidate and hence Arunalatha cannot be appointed as GDSBPM. He got the interim orders of stay from this Tribunal on the same day, i.e. 10.6.2008. On account of the said interim orders dated 10.6.2008 appointment orders could not be given to N. Arunalatha. While the matter was coming up for filing reply, the Post Master General, Kurnool passed orders dated 24.7.2008 reviewing the selection orders passed by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Tirupati exercising his powers under Rule 4 (3) of GDS (Conduct & Employment) Rules, 2001. In the said orders, it is stated that Arunalatha, SC candidate provisionally selected by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Tirupati did not enclose the caste certificate in the prescribed proforma though in the notification dated 29.10.2007 it was categorically specified that if the caste certificate is not in the prescribed proforma, the candidate will be treated as OC. It is further stated therein that though in the notification it is specified that the caste certificate should be issued by Tehsildar, Arunalatha, the selected candidate, submitted a caste certificate issued in 2002 by MRO which is not in the prescribed proforma and therefore N. Arunalatha should be treated as OC as per the conditions mentioned in the notification wherein it is stated that if the caste certificate is not in the prescribed proforma, the department is left with no choice other than treating such candidate as OC. It is further stated therein that Arunalatha is treated as OC and therefore, it is concluded that no eligible candidate has appeared for the selection from the categories of SC, ST and OBC and that the vacancy has to be treated as OC and if it is treated as such, P. Hemakashi who passed SSC at the first attempt is meritorious than Arunalatha who passed compartmentally and as such selection of N. Arunalatha, R-5 in OA 458/ 2008 is not in accordance with the conditions mentioned in the notification. The Postmaster General directed the Superintendent of Post Offices to take necessary action accordingly.
5. Thereafter on 11.8.2008, P. Hemakshi, the applicant in OA 338/ 2008 was asked to secure accommodation for location of the branch office stating that his selection was under consideration. In view of the said orders, Hemakshi, the applicant in OA 338/ 2008 got his application dismissed as not pressed. But, Hemakshi could not secure accommodation for location of branch office in that village, though he was granted sufficient time. Hemakshi himself submitted a letter to Superintendent of Post Offices on 23.8.2008 stating that he is unable to secure accommodation and therefore he has no objection to select another candidate.
6. On 15.7.2008, Smt. E. Bhuvaneshwari and Shri P. Karunakar, the other two OC candidates who appeared for interview on 5.12.2007 filed OA 458/ 2008 challenging the provisional selection of N. Arunalatha by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Tirupati, impleading N. Arunalatha as R-5 and official respondents as R-1 to R-4 almost on the same grounds on which OA 338/ 2008 was filed. It is contended in the said application that 5th respondent, N. Arunalatha has not enclosed the caste certificate in the proforma prescribed by the department and therefore, she cannot be treated as SC candidate and that as three SC candidates have not appeared for the interview on 5.12.2007, the posts shall be thrown open to the OC and that their names should have been considered for the post as they passed the SSC in the first attempt whereas Arunalatha passed SSC compartmentally and thus, they are meritorious than Arunalatha. The applicants, Smt. E.Bhuvaneshwari and Shri P. Karunakar prayed for the following relief:
Call for the records relating to the selection for the post of GDS BPM, Madibaka BO, a/w Papanaidupeta SO, Tirupati East Sub Division, leading upto the impugned order dated 4.6.2008 and set aside the same by holding the action of 4th respondent as illegal, arbitrary, malafide and discriminatory being violation of Article 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to consider the candidature of the applicants herein and the respondent No.5 alone if eligible and select the meritorious candidate by treating the vacancy as OC forthwith and issue appointment orders accordingly and pass such other or further orders deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
7. The said OA 458/ 2008 came up for hearing on 30.7.2008 and on that day, this Tribunal passed interim order not to give appointment order to 5th respondent while ordering notice to R-5, N. Arunalatha returnable by two weeks. On 26.8.2008 Arunalatha filed OA 525/ 2008 impleading P. Hemakshi as R-5 seeking the following relief:
In view of the facts and circumstances explained above, the applicant herein prays that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to call for the records pertaining to the selection of Branch Postmaster, Madibaka Branch Office, a/w Papanaidupeta SO, and quash and set aside the impugned order of the 3rd respondent vide his Memo No.LC-09/2008 dated 14.8.2008, and declare the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the applicant who was selected as per Memo No. B3/BPM/ Madibaka dated 4.6.2008 issued by the 4th respondent, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
7. In the said application, Arunalatha contended that she secured 278 marks in the qualifying examination of SSC whereas Hemakshi and other OC candidates secured less marks and that as the post is reserved for SC category and the other SC candidate appeared for the interview has not produced the original marks certificate, the Superintendent of Post Offices rightly selected her for the post and asked her to secure accommodation but the Postmaster General, Kurnool Division erred in cancelling the said selection by way of review. She further pleaded that there was no need for 3 SC candidates to appear for the interview and that in catena of cases, this Tribunal held that even if a single application if it is complete in all terms should be taken as an effective application without insisting three applications. Hence, the very notification itself is defective and further the notification was not given a wide publicity. For the said reasons, Arunalatha sought for setting aside the impugned order passed by Postmaster General, Kurnool, R-3 in his Memo. dated 14.8.2008 by declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. She also sought for a direction to appoint the applicant who was selected as per Memo dated 4.6.2008 issued by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Tirupati.
8. Not only the official respondents, but also the 5th respondent, Hemakshi who could not secure accommodation and not pressed his claim for the post, also filed counters opposing the claim of Arunalatha for appointment. The official respondents, in their reply admitted that the vacancy of GDS BPM of Madibaka is reserved for SC category and it was notified as such and in pursuance of that notification 10 applications were received, out of which 4 candidates claimed under SC category. The respondents pleaded that only 5 candidates attended for the interview on 5.12.2007 and out of them 2 candidates belong to SC category and the remaining belong to OC. The selection file was submitted to the Regional Office on 5.12.2007 for final selection but as the then Superintendent of Post Offices was within six months of superannuation. Later, the file was returned to the Superintendent of Post Offices, Tirupati on 23.5.2008 after the new incumbent, Shri T.R. Prabhakara Rao joined the post, with the direction to finalize the selection according to the GDS Rules in force. Out of 5 candidates attended, only 2 belong to SC community, the remaining 5 covers were also opened to check up whether there are three eligible applications of the reserved category before offering to other categories and found that there were 2 more applications from SC community. Though the applications were opened on 4.6.2008, the applications of those who did not attend for the interview on 5.12.2007 were not considered for selection and the selection was made only from those who attended verification previously on 5.12.2007. It is further pleaded that that as there are 4 eligible SC candidates offered their candidature, the selection was made from the candidates of SC community who appeared for interview on 5.12.2007. Km. R. Surekha Rani who belong to SC got the highest marks of 326, but she did not produce her certificates at the time of verification and therefore the next SC candidate, Kum N. Arunalatha with 278 marks who passed SSC compartmentally was provisionally selected to the post of GDS BPM, Madibaka subject to the verification of PBRs and educational qualification certificates from the concerned authorities. But aggrieved of that selection, P. Hemakashi filed OA 338/ 2008 challenging the said selection before this Tribunal and then the case file and all other relevant records were submitted to the R-3, Director of Postal Services, Kurnool for review. R-3 reviewed the case and directed R-4, the Superintendent of Post Offices, Tirupati to treat the candidature of Arunalatha as OC for the reason that she failed to fulfill the condition regarding submission of caste certificate in the prescribed format as specified in item No. 8 (c ) of the notification. Accordingly, her candidature was treated as OC and the vacancy is offered to OC. Hemakshi, R-5 is the most meritorious candidate among the eligible applicants appeared for verification on 5.12.2007 and therefore he was directed to secure accommodation. But Hemakshi could not secure accommodation and therefore not pressed his claim in OA 338/ 2008 on 21.8.2008. But, in the meanwhile the other two OC candidates, Smt. E. Bhuvaneshwari and Shri P. Karunakar who appeared for the interview on 5.12.2007 filed another OA 458/ 2008 and in the said OA this Tribunal directed not to issue appointment order to Kum. N. Arunalatha, the applicant in OA 525/ 2008. The respondents further pleaded that though N. Arunalatha got more marks than all other OC candidates appeared for interview, as she passed compartmentally whereas the other OC candidates passed SSC at the first attempt, the next OC candidate after Hemakshi is to be treated as meritorious than the applicant, Kum. N. Arunalatha. Hence, Arunalatha is not entitled for appointment as GDS BPM of Madibaka.
9. The 5th respondent, P. Hemakshi in his counter reiterated the contentions raised by him in OA 338/ 2008 contending that the post shall be thrown open to OC category for want of 3 SC candidates who appeared for the interview and further, Arunalatha cannot be treated as SC and she shall be treated as OC as she did not produce the caste certificate in the prescribed proforma enclosed to the notification. He prayed for dismissal of OA 525/ 2008 as devoid of merits.
10. During the course of hearing the learned counsel for N. Arunalatha, the applicant in OA 525/ 2008 contended that the applicant was issued with caste certificate as long back as in the year 2002 by the then Mandal Revenue Officer who is competent to issue caste certificate at that time and the same was produced along with the application and further transfer certificate was also enclosed to her application wherein her caste status was also mentioned as SC and that originally on 4.6.2008 the Superintendent of Post Offices, Tirupati rightly treated N. Arunalatha as SC candidate and rightly selected her for the post reserved for SC and directed Arunalatha to secure accommodation for the location of branch post office, and that the said selection was erroneously reviewed by the Post Master General, Kurnool. He further contended that there is no need for 3 SC category candidates to appear for interview in order to select the reserved SC candidate and that even if one SC candidate appeared for the interview, the post shall not be converted to OC. He further submitted that even if it is treated as OC post, Arunalatha is to be selected as she obtained more marks than all other candidates who produced original marks certificates, though she passed compartmentally. He further contended that the caste status of the applicant is not disputed by the official respondents. Therefore, even if it is assumed that the caste certificate enclosed to the application is not in the prescribed format, it does not take away the status of the applicant as SC and that the policy of the Government regarding reservation for SC shall not be defeated by default of the SC candidate in producing the certificate in the prescribed format. He contended that the Post Master General has no right to review the selection made by the Superintendent of Post Offices, and Rule 4 (3) of GDS (Conduct & Employment) Rules, 2001 cannot be pressed into service in this case. The senior standing counsel for official respondents supported the review order passed by the Post Master General. The counsel for the applicant in OA 458/ 2008 and counsel for R-5 in OA 525/ 2008 reiterated their contentions raised in their respective pleadings supporting the orders of review passed by the Postmaster General.
11. The points that arise for consideration in these applications are:
(i) Whether the review orders passed by the Postmaster General disentitling N. Arunalatha to be appointed as GDS BPM of Madibaka branch post office is sustainable in law?
(ii) Whether the post of GDSBPM of Madibaka is required to be filled up treating it as OC category post. If so, Arunalatha is not entitled to be selected for the post?
(iii) To what result?
12. Point No. (i):
It is not disputed that the Superintendent of Post Offices, Tirupati is the appointing authority for filling up the post of GDSBPM of Madibaka branch post office. It is also not disputed that the said authority after considering the applications received and the candidates appeared for the interview, provisionally selected N. Arunalatha treating her as a SC candidate and also treating the post reserved for SC community. It is also not disputed that even prior to issue of the notification in the year 2007, the department considered as to how many candidates belonging to SC are in occupation of GDSBPM post and found that though 59 GDSBPM posts are to be filled by the candidates belonging to SC community, there were only 38 posts occupied by the SC community and thus, there was a shortfall of 7.1% in respect of SC category and therefore the Post Master General decided that the vacancy of Madibaka branch post office shall be reserved for SC category and accordingly notification was issued. It is also not disputed that N. Arunalatha submitted application claiming that she belongs to SC category and along with the application she not only enclosed caste certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer dated 26.8.2002 but also enclosed the transfer certificate issued by the English Medium High School of Tirupati in which the applicant studied 10th Class. In the transfer certificate also it is mentioned by the school authorities that Arunalatha belongs to Harijanamala of SC community. The caste certificate produced by her reads as follows:
MANDAL REVENUE OFFICE - RENIGUNTA CHITTOOR DISTRICT, A.P. - 517 520 (Office Seal) SSID : 1012-0001-0039-4003 Appl. No. 2002 452 Date: 26-08-2002 COMMUNITY, NATIVITY AND DATE OF BIRTH CERTIFICATE
1) This is is to certify that Sri/ Smt/ Kum - N. ARUNALATHA ***** Sono/ daughter of Sri C. NATARAJAN ***** of Village/ Town
-THUKIVAKAM (H.No. 18-78) ***** Mandal - RENIGUNTA ***** District -CHITOOR ***** of State of Andhra Pradesh belongs to
-MALA ***** community which is recognised as SCC***** under The Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order 1950 The Constitution (Schedule Tribes) Order 1950 G.O.Ms. No. 1793, Education, dated 25-9-1970 as amended from time to time (B.Cs) S.Cs, S.Ts, list (Modification) Order, 1956 S.Cs and S.Ts (Amendment) Act 1976.
2) It is certified that Sri/ Smt/ Kum N. ARUNALATHA ***** is a native of -THUKIVAKAM ***** Village/ Town RENIGUNTA ***** Mandal -CHITTOOR ***** District of Andhra Pradesh. 3) It is certified that the place of birth of Sri/ Smt/ Kum N. ARUNALATHA ***** is -THUKIVAKAM ***** Village/ Town -RENIGUTNA ***** Mandal -CHITTOOR ***** District of Andhra Pradesh. 4) It is certified that the date of birth of Sri/ Smt/ Kum - N. ARUNALATHA ***** Day - 19***** Month - 8***** Year 1974***** (in words) One Nine***** - August***** - One Nine Seven Four
as per declaration given by his/her father/mother/guardian and as entered in the school records where he/ she studied.
Signature:
(Seal) Date:
Name:
MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER
RENIGUNTA
Designation:
The appointing authority satisfied with the caste status of Arunalatha and provisionally selected her as she is qualified to be appointed as GDS BPM and communicated the said selection to Arunalatha asking her to secure accommodation for location of branch post office and accordingly Arunalatha secured accommodation and submitted a letter to that effect along with the consent letter of the owner of the house who agreed to rent out the house to Arunalatha for location of branch post office. At that stage, as one of the OC candidates, by name, P. Hemakshi, the applicant in OA 338/ 2008 challenged the selection of Arunalatha, the entire record was submitted to the Post Master General's office, obviously on the directions of the Post Master General. The Director, Postal Services reviewed the selection and directed the Superintendent of Post Offices who is the appointing authority not to give appointment to Arunalatha but to give appointment to the OC candidate, P. Hemakshi. According to the respondents, the Director, Postal Services got the power to review such selection process and issue such direction as per Rule 4 (3) of GDS (Conduct & Employment) Rules, 2001. Therefore, it is useful to extract the said Rule 4 (3) for better appreciation. 4. Appointing Authority (1) The Appointing Authority in respect of each category of Sevak shall be as shown in the schedule annexed to these rules.
(2) If any doubt arises as to who is the appropriate Appointing Authority in any case, the matter shall be referred to the Government, whose decision thereon shall be final.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, any authority superior to the Appointing Authority as shown in the Schedule, may, at any time, either or its own motion or otherwise call for the records relating to the appointment of Gramin Dak Sevaks made by the Appointing Authority, and if such Appointing Authority appears -
(a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by any law or rules time being in force; or
(b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested: or ( c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, such superior authority may, after giving an opportunity of being heard, make such order as its thinks fit. It is not disputed that as per Schedule, appointing authority for GDSBPM is the Superintendent of Post Officers and the next higher authority is the Director of Postal Services. Therefore, sub-rules (1) d (2) are not relevant here. As seen from Rule 4 (3), the authority superior to the appointing authority has got power to suo motu call for record relating to the appointment of GDS made by the appointing authority and review the same only when the appointing authority exercised the jurisdiction not vested in it, or failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Even in such cases, the superior authority has got power to revise the orders only after giving an opportunity of being heard to the affected party. Here, in the instant case, no notice was given for Arunalatha who has been provisionally selected by the appointing authority to show cause why her provisional selection shall not be set aside by way of a review in exercise of powers under Rule 4 (3) of GDS Rules.
13. Firstly it has to be seen whether any of the three ingredients given under (a), (b) and ( c) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 are satisfied to interfere with the orders of the appointing authority. So far as ingredients mentioned in (a) and (b) are concerned, it is not the case of Postmaster General that the Superintendent of Post Offices has got no jurisdiction or exceeded his jurisdiction to select candidates for filling the post of GDSBPM. Admittedly, he is the appointing authority and he exercised his jurisdiction and selected Arunalatha as a suitable candidate. Coming to third ingredient (c ) covered under sub-rule 3 of Rule 4, the case of the respondents is that the Superintendent of Post Offices, the appointing authority exercised his jurisdiction in violation of the terms and conditions mentioned in the notification and that the appointing authority erred in considering Arunalatha as SC candidate, though Arunalatha did not submit the caste certificate in the prescribed proforma, and therefore the action of the appointing authority is illegal or at least suffered with material irregularity and therefore the superior authority rightly exercised his power of review under Rule 4 (3) of GDS (Conduct & Employment) Rules, 2001. We are unable to accept the contention of the respondents in this regard. Because admittedly, Arunalatha submitted caste certificate issued in the year 2002 by the then Mandal Revenue Officer. By then there was no Tehsildar's post and every Revenue Mandal was headed by the Mandal Revenue Officer. As Arunalatha is a resident of Thukivakam which is within the Renigunta Mandal, she obtained the caste certificate from the Mandal Revenue Officer, Renigunta on 26.8.2002. In fact, the said certificate is in the prescribed format provided in the rules relating to issue of community, nativity and date of birth certificate. There is a clear certification in the certificate enclosed by Arunalatha that she belongs to Mala Community which is recognized as SC category. Further, in the transfer certificate (TC) enclosed along with the application, it is clearly stated that she belong to Harijan Mala, SC against column 5 of the proforma of transfer certificate. In fact, the Director of Postal Services also did not suspect the caste status of Arunalatha. Even in the reply filed in the OA 525/ 2008, the respondents nowhere expressed any doubt regarding the caste status of Arunalatha. They only pleaded that the applicant failed to produce the caste certificate in the prescribed format enclosed to the notification. The format enclosed to the notification reads as follows:
CERTIFICATE TO BE PRODUCED BY SC/ ST CANDIDATES FOR APPOINTMENT UNDER GOVERNMENT OF INDIA APPENDIX-D This is to certify that Sri/ Smt. ......................................................................./ S/o / W/o ............................................................................. of Village ..................................................... District/ Division in the State belongs to the community which is recognized SC/ ST under the constitution (SCs) order 1950/ the constitution (STs) order 1950/ the constitution (SCs) (Part-C states order 1951 1951)/ the constitution (STs) (Part-C) states order 1950, Sri/ Smt or his/ her family ordinarily reside(s) in the District/ Division of the State Station:
Date: TAHSILDAR We have perused the format given in the Andhra Pradesh (SC, ST & BCs) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 and Rules, 1997 and found that the certificate enclosed by the applicant which is extracted in para No.12 is the prescribed format under those rules. It is not known from where the format enclosed to the notification was extracted. However, the certificate enclosed by Arunalatha contains the entire information required in the format enclosed to the notification. In fact, the certificate enclosed by Arunalatha to her application contains more information than required in the format enclosed to the notification. Therefore, there is no material difference between those two formats. In fact, the respondents also in their reply stated as follows:
Perusal of caste certificate enclosed by Arunalatha revealed that it is not in accordance with the format prescribed along with the notification though it is similar to that of Thus, it is clear that the respondents themselves are of the view that the caste certificate enclosed to the application of Arunalatha is similar to that of format enclosed to the notification. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is any material irregularity in the caste certificate produced by Arunalatha. At any rate, if the respondents wanted caste certificate in the form prescribed by them and enclosed to the notification and not in the shape of From-III prescribed in the Andhra Pradesh (SC, ST & BCs) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 and Rules, 1997, Arunalatha should have been asked to produce a fresh certificate in the format enclosed to the notification issued by the Tehsildar, giving her reasonable time. In fact, along with the application, OA 525/ 2008, Arunalatha produced fresh caste certificate issued by the Tehsildar, Renigunta and the Tehsildar also issued the caste certificate in the form prescribed in Form-III in Andhra Pradesh (SC, ST & BCs) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 and Rules, 1997. As the post of Mandal Revenue Officer is now re-designated as Tehsildar, the seal of Tehsildar is found in the place of Mandal Revenue Officer. Merely because, the respondents have enclosed therein the format to the notification and Arunalatha did not notice the same and produced the certificate already issued in the year 2002 in the prescribed format, it does not take away the caste status of Arunalatha. Similarly, the condition No. 8 (c ) mentioned in the notification to the effect that in the event of failure to produce the caste certificate in the prescribed format enclosed to the notification the candidate will be treated as OC does not at all take away the caste status of Arunalatha. The respondents are not empowered to prescribe such condition in order to take away caste status of Arunalatha who belongs to the SC or ST. The form prescribed in Andhra Pradesh (SC, ST & BCs) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 and Rules, 1997 is the prescribed format of caste certificate and Arunalatha submitted caste certificate in that prescribed form. The Revenue authorities in A.P. can issue caste certificate only in the format prescribed in A.P. (S.C., S.T. & B.Cs) Regulation of issue of Community Certificates Act 1993 and Rules 1997 and they can not issue caste certificate in the format prescribed by postal authorities enclosed to their notification in violation of the Rules 1997 framed under A.P. (S.C. , S.T. & B.Cs) Regulation of issue of Community Certificate Act 1993. Curiously enough while making the notification copy to the Tahsildar, Yerpedu Mandal made a request to him to issue caste certificate to the applicants in the enclosed proforma only. Such a request can not be acceded to by the Revenue authorities in view of the specific format prescribed in the above referred Rules. Moreover, Tahsildar, Yerpedu is not competent to issue caste certificate in respect of those who are residents of different Mandal. In fact, Arunalatha is a native of Renigunta Mandal and she obtained caste certificate in the prescribed format in 2002 from the then competent authority, viz. M.R.O., Renigunta and also obtained similar certificate again in 2008 issued by Tahsildar, Renigunta Mandal. That is the reason why the Superintendent of Post Offices treated Arunalatha as SC candidate and selected her for the post reserved for SC category. Even if it is assumed that the Director of Postal Services was of the view that the certificate produced by Arunalatha is not in the prescribed format and that the certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer in the year 2002 is not the proper certificate and the newly designated officer, viz. Tehsildar is required to issue caste certificate, he ought to have issued notice to Arunalatha to produce the certificate issued by Tehsildar. The law is well settled that the certificate already issued by the then competent authorities are to be accepted unless they are duly cancelled by a competent authority. In the instant case, the caste certificate produced by Arunalatha in the year 2002 by the then competent authority cannot be said to be not a valid certificate. Default of not producing the certificate in the format enclosed to the notification, the respondents are not entitled to take away the status of Arunalatha as SC and to fill up SC reserved post by an OC candidate. The reservation policy of the Government cannot be defeated by such technicalities. Even if it is assumed that it is an irregularity, it is a curable irregularity and not a material irregularity which cannot be rectified. Even if it is assumed that the selection by the appointing authority suffered from illegality or material irregularity, without giving opportunity to Arunalatha, the affected party of being heard, the Director of Postal Services has no power to revise the selection of Arunalatha as per the mandate given under Rule 4 (3) (c ) which is in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Thus, the review orders passed by the Director of Postal Services is violative of principles of natural justice also. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the review orders passed by the Director of Postal Services in exercise of powers under Rule 4 (3) of GDS (Conduct & Employment) Rules 2001, is not sustainable in law and it is liable to be set aside. Thus, this point is found in favour of Arunalatha, the applicant in OA 525/ 2008.
14. Point No. (ii):
Admittedly, four candidates from SC community submitted application for the post of GDSBPM of Madibaka branch post office. The said post cannot be thrown open to the OC category on the ground that three SC candidates have not appeared for the interview. The contention of the applicants in OA 458/ 2008 in this regard is not tenable and it is liable to be rejected. Even if it is thrown open to OC category, as it is found that Arunalatha belongs to SC and as she is qualified, she has to be preferred as he got more marks than OC candidates, though she passed compartmentally, for the post of GDSBPM, Madibaka branch post office which is reserved for SC category. Thus, this point is also found in favour of Arunalatha.
15. Point No. (iii):
In view of the findings in points (i) and (ii), the OA 458/ 2008 is liable to be dismissed and OA 525/ 2008 is to be allowed. In the result, OA 458/ 2008 is dismissed as devoid of merits and OA 525/ 2008 is allowed setting aside the review orders dated 24.7.2008 passed by the Director of Postal Services; and directing the Superintendent of Post Offices, Tirupathi to complete the process of selection by issuing appointment orders to Arunalatha basing on provisional selection made by him earlier. The orders shall be complied with within two months from the date of receipt of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
( R. Santhanam) (P. Lakshmana Reddy)
Member (A) Vice-Chairman
Dated: 9 th February, 2009