Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh

Roop Singh vs D/O Post on 11 November, 2025

                                                               ​1​           ​(O.A.No. 063/773/2021)​


                                 ​CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL​
                                         ​CHANDIGARH BENCH​
                                                ​O.A.No. 063/773/2021​
                             ​Circuit Bench at Shimla, Order Reserved: 25.09.2025​
                                                             ​Pronounced:11.11.2025​

                         ​ ORAM:​
                         C
                          ​HON'BLE MR. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J)​
                             ​HON'BLE MRS. ANJALI BHAWRA, MEMBER (A)​

​Roop​ ​Singh​ ​son​ ​of​ ​Sh.​ ​Kashmir​​Singh,​​age​​45​​years,​​presently​​working​ ​as​ ​Assistant​ ​Branch​ ​Postmaster​ ​Koserian,​ ​Via​ ​Talai,​ ​District​ ​Bilaspur,​ ​H.P-174030 (Group-D).​ ​...Applicant​ ​(By Advocate: Mr. Rishav Sharma)​ ​VERSUS​ ​1.​ ​Union​ ​of​ ​India​ ​through​ ​its​ ​Secretary,​ ​Ministry​ ​of​ ​Communication,​ ​Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi - 110001.​ ​2.​ ​The Chief Postmaster General, H.P. Circle, Shimla - 171009.​ ​3.​ ​Smt.​ ​Kiran​ ​Bala,​ ​Postman,​ ​working​ ​under​ ​SSPO,​ ​Hamirpur​ ​Division, Hamirpur.​ ​...Respondents​ ​(By Advocate: Ms. Suchitra Thakur for R-1 & 2, Mr. Karam Pal for R-3)​ ​ R D E R​ O ​Per: RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J):​ ​1.​ ​The​ ​present​ ​Original​ ​Application​ ​has​ ​been​ ​preferred​ ​against​ ​Memorandum​​No.​​R&E/77-17/2020​​dated​​19.05.2021​​(Annexure​​A-1)​​to​ ​the​ ​extent​ ​it​ ​relates​ ​to​ ​Hamirpur​ ​Postal​ ​Division​ ​whereby​ ​one​ ​vacancy​ ​reserved​ ​for​ ​EWS​​Category​​has​​been​​excluded​​and​​given​​to​​unreserved​ ​category​ ​ignoring​ ​the​ ​claim​ ​of​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​who​ ​belongs​ ​to​ ​EWS​ ​Category,​ ​and​ ​further​ ​against​ ​Memorandum​ ​dated​ ​24.05.2021​ ​(Annexure​ ​A-3)​ ​issued​ ​by​ ​Respondent​ ​No.2​ ​whereby​ ​the​ ​result​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Postman/Mail​ ​Guard​ ​Examination​​2020​​has​​been​​declared​​to​​the​​extent​ ​it​ ​pertain​ ​Hamirpur​ ​Division​ ​whereby​ ​the​ ​vacancy​ ​reserved​ ​for​ ​EWS​ ​Category​ ​has​​been​​excluded​​and​​vide​​Annexure​​A-1​​the​​vacancies​​have​ ​been​ ​increased​ ​from​ ​2​ ​to​ ​3​ ​and​ ​no​ ​reservation​ ​has​ ​been​ ​provided​ ​to​ ​EWS Category. The applicant has prayed for reliefs as under:​ 2025.11.11 SHIVAM 21:17:23 +05'30' ​2​ ​(O.A.No. 063/773/2021)​ ​"i) That the complete record of the case be called for;​ ​ii)​​That​​Annexure​​A-1​​dated​​19.05.2021​​changing​​the​​vacancy​​position​ ​in​ ​Hamirpur​ ​Division​ ​from​ ​two​ ​to​ ​three​ ​and​ ​thereafter​ ​making​ ​of​ ​appointment​ ​for​ ​four​ ​posts​ ​vide​ ​Annexure​ ​A-3​ ​to​​the​​extent​​it​​relates​ ​to Hamirpur Division be quashed and set aside.​ ​iii)​ ​It​ ​be​ ​declared​ ​that​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​is​ ​entitled​ ​to​ ​appointment​ ​to​​the​ ​post​​of​​Postman​​as​​per​​merit​​and​​notification​​under​​EWS​​quota​​with​​as​ ​per​ ​all​ ​result​ ​80​ ​declared​ ​dated​ ​31.01.2019​ ​consequential​ ​benefits​ ​from​ ​the​ ​date​ ​it​ ​has​ ​been​ ​made​ ​to​ ​the​ ​other​ ​similarly​ ​placed​ ​employees.​ ​iv)​ ​That​ ​this​ ​Hon'ble​ ​Tribunal​ ​may​ ​also​ ​pass​ ​any​ ​other​ ​order​ ​for​ ​the​ ​grant​ ​of​ ​relief​ ​to​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​which​ ​it​ ​may​ ​deem​ ​fit​ ​in​ ​the​ ​peculiar​ ​facts and circumstances of the case.​ ​v)​ ​That​ ​the​ ​cost​ ​of​ ​the​ ​application​ ​may​ ​also​ ​be​ ​awarded​ ​in​ ​favour​ ​of​ ​the applicant."​ ​2.​ ​Facts​ ​of​ ​the​ ​case​ ​in​ ​brief​ ​are​ ​as​ ​follows.​ ​The​ ​applicant,​​presently​ ​working​ ​as​ ​Assistant​ ​Branch​ ​Postmaster​ ​(earlier​ ​known​ ​as​ ​Extra​ ​Departmental​ ​Delivery​ ​Agent/Mail​ ​Deliverer),​ ​joined​ ​service​ ​on​ ​01.08.1998​​in​​Hamirpur​​Postal​​Division​​under​​the​​H.P.​​Postal​​Circle.​​The​ ​applicant​ ​possesses​ ​the​ ​qualification​ ​of​ ​10+2​ ​and​ ​belongs​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Economically​ ​Weaker​ ​Section​ ​(EWS)​ ​category,​ ​duly​ ​certified​ ​vide​ ​certificate dated 11.12.2020 (Annexure A-4).​ ​3.​ ​The​ ​applicant​ ​has​ ​submitted​​that​​as​​per​​the​​Recruitment​​Rules​​of​ ​2019​​governing​​the​​cadre​​of​​Postman/Mail​​Guard,​​50%​​of​​the​​posts​​are​ ​to​ ​be​ ​filled​ ​through​ ​a​ ​Limited​ ​Departmental​ ​Competitive​ ​Examination​ ​(LDCE)​ ​from​ ​amongst​ ​eligible​ ​Gramin​ ​Dak​ ​Sevaks​ ​(GDS).​ ​The​ ​respondents​ ​issued​ ​Notification​ ​dated​ ​28.11.2020​ ​(Annexure​ ​A-2),​ ​notifying​ ​vacancies​ ​for​ ​the​ ​vacancy​ ​year​ ​2020.​ ​In​ ​Hamirpur​ ​Division,​ ​two​ ​posts​​were​​notified,​​one​​reserved​​for​​ST​​category​​and​​one​​for​​EWS​ ​category.​ ​4.​ ​The​ ​applicant​ ​applied​ ​through​ ​proper​ ​channel​ ​under​ ​the​ ​EWS​ ​quota​ ​and​ ​appeared​ ​in​ ​the​ ​LDCE​ ​held​ ​on​ ​20.12.2020.​ ​The​ ​applicant​ ​qualified​ ​the​ ​written​ ​examination​ ​with​ ​86​ ​marks​ ​and​ ​was​ ​declared​ 2025.11.11 SHIVAM 21:17:23 +05'30' ​3​ ​(O.A.No. 063/773/2021)​ ​successful​ ​for​ ​the​ ​Data​ ​Entry​ ​and​ ​Skill​ ​Test​ ​(DEST)​ ​scheduled​ ​for​ ​26.03.2021,​ ​as​ ​per​ ​Memorandum​ ​dated​ ​19.03.2021​ ​(Annexure​ ​A-5).​ ​The​ ​applicant​ ​further​​qualified​​the​​DEST,​​securing​​32​​marks,​​as​​per​​the​ ​consolidated result (Annexure A-6).​ ​5.​ ​The​ ​respondents​ ​issued​ ​Memorandum​ ​dated​ ​19.05.2021​ ​(Annexure​​A-1),​​whereby​​the​​vacancy​​earlier​​reserved​​for​​EWS​​category​ ​was​ ​deleted​ ​and​ ​shown​ ​as​ ​unreserved,​ ​while​ ​another​ ​vacancy​ ​was​ ​earmarked​ ​for​ ​SC​ ​category.​ ​Consequently,​ ​the​​revised​​vacancy​​position​ ​reflected one unreserved post, one for ST, and one for SC category.​ ​6.​ ​Subsequently,​ ​vide​ ​Memorandum​ ​dated​ ​24.05.2021​ ​(Annexure​ ​A-3),​ ​the​ ​respondents​ ​declared​ ​the​​final​​result​​and​​made​​appointments​ ​to​ ​four​ ​posts​ ​of​ ​Postman/Mail​ ​Guard​ ​in​ ​Hamirpur​ ​Division,​ ​contrary​ ​to​ ​the​​two​​posts​​originally​​notified.​​The​​EWS​​quota​​was​​not​​reflected​​in​​the​ ​revised​ ​vacancy​ ​list,​ ​thereby​ ​excluding​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​from​​appointment​ ​despite​ ​his​ ​having​ ​qualified​ ​under​ ​the​ ​originally​ ​notified​ ​EWS​ ​post.​ ​Aggrieved,​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​submitted​ ​a​ ​representation​ ​dated​ ​31.05.2021​ ​to​ ​the​ ​competent​ ​authority,​ ​followed​ ​by​ ​an​ ​application​ ​under​ ​the​ ​Right​ ​to​ ​Information​ ​Act,​ ​2005,​​seeking​​clarification​​regarding​​the​​deletion​​of​ ​the​ ​EWS​ ​post.​ ​Vide​ ​letter​ ​dated​ ​29.06.2021​ ​(Annexure​ ​A-7),​ ​the​ ​respondents​ ​intimated​​that​​since​​both​​originally​​notified​​vacancies​​were​ ​reserved​ ​(one​ ​ST​ ​and​ ​one​ ​EWS),​ ​it​ ​would​ ​have​ ​resulted​ ​in​ ​100%​ ​reservation, which was not permissible under the rules.​ ​7.​ ​The​​applicant​​has​​disputed​​the​​above​​reasoning,​​asserting​​that​​the​ ​deletion​ ​of​ ​the​ ​EWS​ ​post​ ​is​ ​contrary​ ​to​ ​law​ ​and​ ​government​ ​policy,​ ​particularly​ ​DoP&T​ ​OM​ ​dated​ ​31.01.2019​ ​(Annexure​ ​A-8),​ ​which​ ​introduced​​10%​​reservation​​for​​EWS​​candidates​​in​​direct​​recruitment​​to​ ​civil​ ​posts​ ​and​ ​services​ ​under​ ​the​ ​Government​ ​of​ ​India.​ ​The​ ​applicant​ ​contends​ ​that​ ​the​ ​ground​ ​of​ ​100%​ ​reservation​ ​is​ ​misconceived​ ​as​ ​the​ ​EWS​ ​quota​ ​is​ ​distinct​ ​from​ ​the​ ​vertical​ ​reservations​ ​for​ ​SC/ST/OBC​ 2025.11.11 ​categories​​and​​is​​to​​be​​implemented​​through​​roster​​interpolation​​as​​per​ SHIVAM 21:17:23 +05'30' ​4​ ​(O.A.No. 063/773/2021)​ ​Annexures​​II​​to​​V​​of​​the​​said​​OM.​​The​​EWS​​reservation​​being​​horizontal​ ​in​ ​nature​ ​and​ ​applied​​within​​the​​general​​category​​framework​​cannot​​be​ ​termed as 100% reservation.​ ​8.​ ​The​ ​applicant​ ​further​ ​submits​ ​that​ ​after​ ​the​ ​LDCE​ ​and​ ​DEST​ ​had​ ​been​ ​conducted​ ​and​ ​results​ ​were​ ​prepared,​ ​the​ ​respondents​ ​could​ ​not​ ​lawfully​ ​alter​ ​the​ ​notified​ ​vacancy​ ​position,​ ​as​ ​it​ ​would​ ​amount​ ​to​ ​changing​ ​the​ ​rules​ ​of​ ​the​ ​game​ ​after​ ​the​ ​game​ ​has​ ​started,​ ​which​ ​is​ ​impermissible​​under​​settled​​law.​​It​​is​​also​​the​​case​​of​​the​​applicant​​that​ ​vacancies​ ​of​ ​Postman​ ​are​ ​still​ ​available​ ​in​ ​the​ ​Hamirpur​ ​Division​ ​and,​ ​therefore,​​he​​can​​be​​adjusted​​against​​the​​EWS​​quota​​in​​accordance​​with​ ​the Government of India's reservation policy.​ ​9.​ ​The​ ​main​ ​contention​ ​of​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​is​ ​that​ ​the​ ​action​ ​of​ ​the​ ​respondents​​in​​deleting​​the​​EWS​​vacancy​​is​​violative​​of​​the​​Government​ ​of​ ​India​ ​OM​ ​dated​ ​31.01.2019,​ ​which​ ​mandates​ ​10%​ ​reservation​ ​for​ ​EWS​ ​in​ ​direct​ ​recruitment​ ​to​ ​civil​ ​posts,​ ​and​ ​the​ ​plea​ ​of​ ​100%​ ​reservation​ ​given​ ​by​ ​the​ ​respondents​ ​is​ ​contrary​ ​to​ ​the​ ​DoPT​ ​instructions​ ​regarding​ ​roster​ ​maintenance.​ ​The​ ​applicant​ ​has​ ​argued​ ​that​ ​the​ ​act​ ​of​ ​the​ ​respondents​ ​of​ ​modifying​ ​the​ ​vacancy​ ​position​ ​vide​ ​corrigendum​ ​dated​ ​19.05.2021​ ​after​ ​the​ ​conduct​ ​of​ ​examination​ ​and​ ​declaration​​of​​result​​constitutes​​a​​clear​​case​​of​​changing​​the​​rules​​of​​the​ ​game​ ​mid-way,​ ​which​ ​is​ ​impermissible​ ​in​ ​law​ ​as​ ​held​ ​by​ ​the​ ​Hon'ble​ ​Supreme Court in a number of judgments.​ ​10.​ ​The​ ​applicant​ ​submits​ ​that​ ​diverting​ ​the​ ​EWS-reserved​ ​post​ ​to​ ​unreserved​ ​or​ ​SC​ ​category​ ​is​ ​arbitrary,​ ​discriminatory,​ ​and​ ​against​ ​the​ ​spirit​ ​of​ ​Articles​ ​14​ ​and​ ​16​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Constitution.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​contended​ ​by​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​that​ ​once​ ​the​ ​EWS​ ​post​ ​was​ ​duly​ ​notified,​ ​it​ ​could​ ​not​ ​have​ ​been​ ​deleted​ ​without​ ​valid​ ​justification​ ​or​ ​prior​ ​approval.​​The​​applicant​ ​further​ ​contends​ ​that​ ​the​ ​respondents​ ​have​ ​failed​​to​​correctly​​compute​ ​and​ ​apply​ ​the​ ​reservation​ ​roster​ ​in​ ​accordance​ ​with​ ​the​ ​OM​ ​dated​ 2025.11.11 ​31.01.2019.​ ​The​ ​applicant​ ​argues​ ​that​ ​even​ ​if​ ​two​ ​posts​​were​​notified,​ SHIVAM 21:17:23 +05'30' ​5​ ​(O.A.No. 063/773/2021)​ ​EWS​ ​reservation​ ​does​ ​not​ ​amount​ ​to​ ​100%​ ​reservation,​ ​as​ ​EWS​ ​candidates​ ​are​ ​treated​ ​as​ ​part​ ​of​ ​the​ ​general​ ​category​ ​pool,​ ​not​ ​as​ ​a​ ​separate vertical category.​ ​11.​ ​The​ ​applicant​ ​has​ ​further​ ​contended​ ​that​ ​having​​qualified​​in​​both​ ​LDCE​ ​and​ ​DEST​ ​with​ ​merit​ ​marks,​ ​he​ ​is​ ​the​ ​only​ ​candidate​ ​from​ ​the​ ​Hamirpur​ ​Division​ ​belonging​​to​​the​​EWS​​category.​​The​​applicant​​argues​ ​that​ ​despite​ ​fulfilling​ ​all​ ​eligibility​ ​and​ ​merit​ ​conditions,​ ​his​​exclusion​​is​ ​unjust​ ​and​ ​violative​ ​of​ ​fair​ ​play.​​The​​applicant​​has​​contested​​the​​action​ ​of​ ​the​ ​respondents​ ​of​ ​filling​ ​four​ ​posts​ ​instead​ ​of​ ​the​ ​two​ ​originally​ ​advertised​ ​without​ ​due​ ​amendment​ ​to​ ​the​ ​original​ ​notification​ ​is​ ​arbitrary​​and​​contrary​​to​​settled​​law​​that​​prohibits​​appointments​​beyond​ ​notified​ ​vacancies.​ ​The​ ​applicant​ ​further​ ​submits​ ​that​ ​vacancies​ ​of​ ​Postman​ ​are​ ​still​ ​lying​ ​vacant​ ​in​​the​​Hamirpur​​Division​​and​​that​​he​​can​ ​be​ ​accommodated​ ​against​ ​the​ ​EWS​ ​quota​ ​without​ ​disturbing​ ​the​ ​existing select list.​ ​12.​ ​The​ ​respondents​ ​have​ ​contested​ ​the​ ​claim​ ​of​ ​the​ ​applicant.​ ​In​ ​reply,​ ​it​ ​is​ ​contended​ ​by​ ​Respondent​ ​Nos.​ ​1​ ​&​ ​2​ ​that​ ​the​ ​recruitment​ ​notification​ ​dated​ ​28.11.2020​ ​(Annexure​ ​A-2)​ ​for​ ​filling​ ​posts​ ​of​ ​Postman/Mail​ ​Guard​​under​​the​​2018​​Recruitment​​Rules​​clearly​​specified​ ​that​ ​the​ ​number​ ​of​ ​vacancies​ ​was​ ​tentative​ ​and​ ​subject​ ​to​ ​change,​ ​therefore,​ ​no​ ​vested​ ​right​ ​accrued​ ​to​ ​the​ ​applicant​​merely​​because​​the​ ​notification​ ​initially​ ​reflected​ ​an​ ​EWS​ ​vacancy.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​stated​ ​by​ ​the​ ​replying​​respondents​​that​​before​​the​​finalization​​of​​the​​result,​​the​​Circle​ ​Office​​reconciled​​the​​vacancy​​position​​and​​observed​​that​​both​​the​​posts​ ​notified​​under​​the​​50%​​GDS​​LDCE​​quota​​in​​Hamirpur​​Division​​had​​been​ ​reserved​ ​i.e.​ ​one​ ​for​ ​ST​ ​and​ ​one​ ​for​ ​EWS,​ ​which​ ​amounted​ ​to​ ​100%​ ​reservation,​​violating​​the​​DoPT's​​ceiling​​limit​​of​​50%​​reservation​​for​​any​ ​recruitment​​year.​​Consequently,​​one​​post​​was​​reallocated​​to​​Unreserved​ ​(UR)​ ​category,​ ​since​ ​EWS​ ​falls​ ​within​ ​the​ ​general​ ​(UR)​ ​category​ ​itself.​ 2025.11.11 ​The​ ​respondents​ ​have​ ​relied​ ​upon​ ​DoPT​ ​Memo​ ​No.​ SHIVAM 21:17:23 +05'30' ​6​ ​(O.A.No. 063/773/2021)​ ​36012/2/96-Estt(Res)​ ​dated​ ​02.07.1997​ ​Chapter​ ​4​ ​para​ ​4.3​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Reservation​ ​Brochure,​ ​wherein​ ​it​ ​is​ ​stipulated​ ​that​ ​the​ ​number​ ​of​ ​vacancies​ ​to​ ​be​ ​reserved​ ​in​ ​a​ ​particular​ ​recruitment​ ​year​ ​should​ ​not​ ​exceed​ ​50%​ ​of​ ​the​ ​total​ ​vacancies.​ ​The​ ​respondents​ ​contend​ ​that​ ​reallocation​ ​of​ ​one​ ​post​ ​from​ ​EWS​ ​to​ ​UR​ ​was​ ​done​ ​strictly​ ​to​ ​comply​ ​with these binding instructions.​ ​13.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​submitted​ ​by​ ​the​ ​official​ ​respondents​ ​that​ ​the​ ​final​ ​vacancy​ ​position​ ​was​ ​notified​ ​vide​ ​Memo​ ​No.​ ​R&E/77-17/2020​ ​dated​ ​19.05.2021,​ ​increasing​ ​the​ ​total​ ​vacancies​ ​from​ ​two​ ​to​ ​four​ ​after​ ​including​ ​two​ ​unfilled​ ​posts​ ​from​ ​other​ ​quotas​​(MTS​​promotion​​quotas)​ ​in​ ​accordance​ ​with​ ​Postal​ ​Directorate​ ​Letter​ ​No.​ ​W-03/2/2020-APB-I​ ​dated​​15.04.2020​​and​​Recruitment​​Rules,​​2018.​​The​​respondents​​assert​ ​that​​this​​was​​done​​before​​declaration​​of​​result​​and​​was​​published​​on​​the​ ​official​ ​website​ ​for​ ​transparency.​ ​The​ ​respondents​ ​argue​ ​that​ ​both​ ​vacancies​ ​under​ ​the​ ​50%​ ​LDCE​ ​quota​ ​could​ ​not​ ​be​ ​reserved,​ ​as​ ​that​ ​would​ ​leave​ ​no​ ​opportunity​ ​for​ ​the​ ​unreserved​ ​category​ ​in​ ​that​ ​year's​ ​recruitment,​​which​​would​​be​​contrary​​to​​DoPT​​policy​​and​​the​​principle​​of​ ​balanced representation.​ ​14.​ ​The​ ​official​ ​respondents​ ​have​ ​clarified​ ​that​ ​the​ ​EWS​ ​category​ ​enjoys​ ​10%​ ​reservation​ ​in​ ​direct​ ​recruitment​ ​outside​ ​the​ ​SC/ST/OBC​ ​categories,​ ​and​ ​the​ ​same​ ​has​ ​been​ ​incorporated​ ​in​ ​the​ ​roster​ ​register.​ ​The​ ​respondents​​contend​​that​​the​​recruitment​​year's​​roster​​position​​did​ ​not​ ​permit​ ​earmarking​ ​of​ ​an​ ​EWS​ ​post​ ​in​ ​Hamirpur​ ​Division​ ​without​ ​breaching​​the​​50%​​reservation​​ceiling.​​Hence,​​one​​post​​was​​necessarily​ ​treated​ ​as​ ​UR​ ​to​ ​maintain​ ​compliance.​ ​The​ ​respondents​ ​further​ ​emphasize​ ​that​ ​EWS​ ​is​ ​a​ ​sub-set​ ​of​ ​the​ ​unreserved​ ​(UR)​​category,​​not​ ​an​ ​independent​ ​vertical​ ​reservation​ ​like​ ​SC/ST/OBC.​ ​Therefore,​ ​conversion​ ​of​ ​one​ ​EWS​ ​post​ ​into​ ​UR​ ​does​ ​not​ ​eliminate​ ​EWS​ ​representation but only maintains the proper roster balance.​ 2025.11.11 SHIVAM 21:17:23 +05'30' ​7​ ​(O.A.No. 063/773/2021)​ ​15.​ ​The​ ​respondents​ ​further​ ​assert​ ​that​ ​the​ ​LDCE​ ​was​ ​conducted​ ​on​ ​10.01.2021,​ ​not​ ​on​ ​20.12.2020​ ​as​ ​alleged.​ ​The​ ​applicant​ ​qualified​ ​in​ ​Paper-II​​and​​was​​allowed​​to​​appear​​in​​the​​DEST,​​but​​he​​did​​not​​secure​​a​ ​position​​in​​the​​UR​​merit​​list​​after​​reallocation​​of​​vacancies,​​and​​the​​merit​ ​was​​determined​​strictly​​based​​on​​marks​​in​​Paper-I,​​as​​per​​the​​rules.​​The​ ​respondents​ ​further​ ​clarify​ ​that​ ​the​ ​reallocation​ ​of​ ​vacancies​ ​was​ ​done​ ​prior​ ​to​ ​the​ ​publication​ ​of​ ​final​​results,​​hence,​​the​​plea​​of​​the​​applicant​ ​of​​changing​​rules​​after​​the​​game​​began​​is​​misplaced,​​as​​the​​modification​ ​was​ ​part​ ​of​ ​administrative​ ​reconciliation​ ​before​ ​conclusion​ ​of​ ​the​ ​process.​ ​16.​ ​The​ ​official​ ​respondents​ ​further​ ​contend​ ​that​ ​all​ ​four​ ​posts​ ​of​ ​Postman/Mail​ ​Guard​ ​for​ ​the​ ​vacancy​ ​year​ ​2020​ ​in​ ​Hamirpur​ ​Division​ ​have​ ​already​ ​been​ ​filled​ ​as​ ​per​ ​the​ ​finalized​ ​category​ ​distribution,​ ​and​ ​no​​vacancy​​remains​​against​​which​​the​​applicant​​can​​be​​accommodated.​ ​The​​respondents​​further​​assert​​that​​since​​the​​applicant​​could​​not​​secure​ ​marks​ ​sufficient​ ​for​ ​selection​ ​in​ ​the​ ​UR​ ​category,​ ​he​ ​is​ ​ineligible​ ​for​ ​appointment​ ​after​ ​deletion​ ​of​ ​the​ ​EWS​ ​post,​ ​and​ ​his​ ​mere​​qualification​ ​in​​DEST​​does​​not​​confer​​any​​right​​to​​selection.​​The​​respondents​​further​ ​assert​​that​​there​​is​​no​​provision​​for​​inter-divisional​​transfer​​of​​vacancies​ ​between​ ​Postman​ ​and​ ​Postal​ ​Assistant​ ​cadres,​ ​and​ ​therefore​ ​the​ ​claim​ ​of​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​for​ ​adjustment​ ​against​ ​EWS​ ​post​​in​​another​​division​​is​ ​not permissible.​ ​17.​ ​Respondent​​No.​​3​​has​​further​​contested​​the​​claim​​of​​the​​applicant.​ ​The​ ​replying​ ​respondent​ ​contends​ ​that​ ​the​ ​present​ ​Original​ ​Application​ ​is​ ​not​​maintainable​​being​​barred​​by​​estoppel,​​waiver​​and​​acquiescence,​ ​as​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​participated​ ​in​ ​the​ ​entire​ ​selection​ ​process​ ​without​ ​protest​ ​and​ ​has​ ​approached​ ​the​ ​Tribunal​ ​after​ ​the​ ​declaration​ ​of​ ​result​ ​on​​24.05.2021,​​and​​hence​​cannot​​be​​permitted​​to​​challenge​​the​​same​​at​ ​a​ ​belated​ ​stage.​ ​Respondent​ ​No.​ ​3​ ​further​ ​contends​ ​that​ ​no​ ​legal​ ​or​ 2025.11.11 ​fundamental​ ​right​ ​of​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​has​ ​been​ ​infringed​ ​by​ ​the​ ​replying​ SHIVAM 21:17:23 +05'30' ​8​ ​(O.A.No. 063/773/2021)​ ​respondent,​ ​who​ ​had​ ​no​ ​role​ ​in​ ​the​ ​administrative​ ​decision​ ​regarding​ ​allocation​ ​or​ ​diversion​ ​of​ ​category-wise​ ​vacancies​ ​as​ ​recruitment​ ​process​​was​​carried​​out​​by​​the​​Department​​of​​Posts,​​and​​no​​fault,​​fraud​ ​or misrepresentation is attributable to Respondent No. 3.​ ​18.​ ​Respondent​ ​No.​ ​3​ ​asserts​ ​that​ ​she​ ​was​ ​selected​ ​purely​ ​on​ ​merit​ ​under​ ​the​ ​Unreserved​ ​(UR)​ ​category​ ​after​ ​clearing​ ​the​ ​written​ ​examination​ ​and​ ​Data​ ​Entry/Skill​ ​Test​ ​(DEST).​ ​She​ ​contends​ ​that​ ​her​ ​selection​ ​was​ ​made​ ​in​ ​accordance​​with​​the​​applicable​​recruitment​​rules​ ​and​ ​after​ ​due​ ​verification​ ​by​ ​the​ ​competent​ ​authority.​ ​She​ ​has​ ​since​ ​completed​​training​​and​​has​​been​​serving​​for​​nearly​​four​​years.​​The​​final​ ​selection​​result​​dated​​25.05.2021​​is​​annexed​​as​​Annexure​​R3/1,​​and​​her​ ​appointment order dated 03.08.2021 as Annexure R3/2.​ ​19.​ ​The​​respondent​​alleges​​that​​the​​applicant​​has​​suppressed​​the​​fact​ ​that​ ​the​ ​final​ ​vacancy​ ​position​ ​was​ ​published​ ​on​ ​the​​official​​website​​on​ ​10.05.2021​ ​(Annexure​ ​A-1)​ ​for​ ​transparency,​ ​and​ ​that​ ​the​ ​result​ ​was​ ​declared​​as​​per​​that​​finalized​​position.​​The​​respondent​​contends​​that​​the​ ​applicant​ ​being​ ​aware​ ​of​ ​this​ ​still​ ​participated​ ​and​ ​only​ ​challenged​ ​the​ ​process​​after​​being​​unsuccessful.​​Respondent​​No.​​3​​further​​submits​​that​ ​the​ ​Circle​ ​Office​ ​finalized​ ​and​ ​published​ ​the​ ​tentative​ ​vacancies​ ​vide​ ​Memo​​No.​​R&E/77-17/2020​​dated​​10.05.2021​​and​​thereafter​​issued​​the​ ​final​ ​memorandum​ ​dated​ ​19.05.2021​ ​(Annexure​ ​A-1),​ ​after​ ​due​ ​reconciliation​ ​and​ ​administrative​ ​approval.​ ​The​ ​respondent​ ​contends​ ​that​ ​this​ ​was​ ​done​ ​in​ ​line​ ​with​ ​the​ ​Department​ ​of​ ​Posts​ ​Recruitment​ ​Rules,​ ​2018,​ ​and​ ​DoPT​ ​guidelines.​ ​Respondent​ ​No.​ ​3​ ​submits​ ​that​ ​the​ ​initial​ ​vacancy​ ​notification​ ​dated​ ​28.11.2020​ ​(Annexure​ ​A-2)​ ​was​ ​tentative,​​and​​therefore​​conferred​​no​​vested​​right​​upon​​the​​applicant​​to​ ​claim appointment under the EWS category.​ ​20.​ ​Respondent​ ​No.​ ​3​ ​has​ ​further​ ​argued​ ​that​ ​both​ ​vacancies​ ​in​ ​Hamirpur​ ​Division​ ​were​ ​originally​ ​reserved​ ​i.e.​ ​one​ ​for​ ​ST​ ​and​ ​one​ ​for​ 2025.11.11 ​EWS,​ ​which​ ​would​ ​have​ ​resulted​ ​in​ ​100%​ ​reservation,​ ​contrary​ ​to​ ​the​ SHIVAM 21:17:23 +05'30' ​9​ ​(O.A.No. 063/773/2021)​ ​law​ ​and​ ​DoPT's​ ​ceiling​ ​limit​ ​of​ ​50%.​ ​Accordingly,​ ​the​ ​EWS​ ​post​ ​was​ ​re-allocated​ ​to​ ​UR​ ​category​ ​prior​ ​to​ ​declaration​ ​of​ ​result,​ ​to​ ​ensure​ ​compliance​​with​​the​​50%​​ceiling​​rule.​​It​​is​​submitted​​by​​the​​respondent​ ​that​ ​the​ ​same​ ​was​ ​duly​ ​intimated​ ​to​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​through​ ​RTI​ ​reply​ ​dated​​29.06.2021.​​The​​respondent​​states​​that​​deletion​​or​​adjustment​​of​ ​EWS​​vacancies​​was​​done​​in​​accordance​​with​​the​​approved​​roster,​​either​ ​due​ ​to​ ​non-availability​ ​of​ ​eligible​ ​EWS​ ​candidates​ ​or​ ​due​ ​to​ ​administrative​​revision​​based​​on​​sanctioned​​strength​​and​​updated​​roster​ ​positions.​ ​Hence,​ ​the​ ​reallocation​ ​was​ ​a​ ​legitimate​ ​exercise​ ​of​ ​administrative​ ​discretion.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​specifically​ ​pleaded​ ​by​ ​the​ ​respondent​ ​that​​EWS​​reservation​​has​​been​​implemented​​in​​the​​Department​​of​​Posts​ ​strictly​ ​in​ ​accordance​ ​with​ ​the​ ​DoPT​ ​O.M.​ ​dated​ ​31.01.2019​ ​and​ ​subsequent​ ​clarifications.​ ​The​ ​EWS​ ​roster​​points​​were​​interpolated​​with​ ​SC/ST/OBC​ ​points​ ​as​ ​per​ ​the​ ​prescribed​ ​pattern​ ​(Annexure​ ​II​ ​to​ ​V).​ ​Therefore,​ ​deletion​ ​of​ ​one​ ​EWS​ ​vacancy​ ​in​ ​a​ ​particular​ ​year​ ​does​ ​not​ ​amount​ ​to​ ​denial​ ​of​ ​reservation​ ​but​ ​was​ ​a​ ​permissible​ ​roster​ ​adjustment.​ ​21.​ ​The​ ​respondents​ ​have​ ​contested​ ​the​ ​claims​ ​of​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​and​ ​asserted​ ​that​ ​the​ ​entire​ ​examination​ ​process,​ ​including​ ​LDCE​ ​held​ ​on​ ​10.01.2021,​ ​evaluation,​​and​​publication​​of​​results,​​was​​conducted​​fairly​ ​and​ ​transparently.​ ​The​ ​applicant​ ​qualified​ ​Paper-II​ ​but​ ​did​ ​not​ ​secure​ ​sufficient​ ​marks​ ​in​ ​Paper-I,​ ​which​ ​alone​ ​determined​ ​the​ ​merit​​position.​ ​The​​revision​​in​​the​​vacancy​​position​​was​​finalized​​prior​​to​​declaration​​of​ ​the​ ​result,​ ​hence​ ​there​ ​was​ ​no​​retrospective​​alteration​​or​​illegality.​​The​ ​applicant​​had​​no​​accrued​​or​​vested​​right​​at​​that​​stage.​​The​​respondents​ ​further​ ​assert​ ​that​ ​the​ ​final​ ​distribution​ ​maintained​ ​vertical​ ​and​ ​horizontal​ ​reservation​ ​as​ ​per​ ​law​ ​and​ ​did​ ​not​ ​breach​ ​the​ ​principle​ ​laid​ ​down​ ​in​ ​Indira​ ​Sawhney​​Vs.​​Union​​of​​India​​.​​It​​is​​further​​submitted​​that​ ​the​ ​recruitment​ ​did​ ​not​ ​concern​ ​a​ ​single-cadre​ ​post,​ ​and​ ​whereas​ ​the​ 2025.11.11 ​applicant​ ​was​ ​the​ ​only​ ​EWS​ ​candidate​ ​from​ ​Hamirpur​ ​Division,​ ​he​ ​did​ SHIVAM 21:17:23 +05'30' ​10​ ​(O.A.No. 063/773/2021)​ ​not​ ​obtain​ ​marks​ ​sufficient​ ​for​ ​selection​ ​in​ ​the​ ​UR​ ​category​ ​after​ ​the​ ​reallocation.​ ​Hence,​ ​his​ ​non-selection​ ​is​ ​an​ ​outcome​ ​of​ ​merit​ ​ranking​ ​and not due to any discrimination or arbitrary action.​ ​22.​ ​We​ ​have​ ​heard​ ​the​ ​arguments​ ​addressed​ ​by​ ​learned​ ​counsel​ ​on​ ​both​ ​sides,​ ​and​ ​carefully​ ​gone​ ​through​ ​the​ ​pleadings​ ​and​ ​the​ ​material​ ​on​ ​record.​ ​The​ ​core​ ​issue​ ​for​ ​consideration​ ​before​ ​this​ ​Tribunal​ ​is​ ​whether​ ​the​ ​action​ ​of​ ​the​ ​official​ ​respondents​ ​in​ ​deleting​ ​EWS​​vacancy​ ​initially​ ​notified​ ​for​ ​the​ ​LDCE​​in​​Harmirpur​​Division​​and​​reallocating​​the​ ​same​ ​to​ ​Unreserved​ ​(UR)​ ​category​ ​before​ ​the​ ​declaration​ ​of​ ​the​ ​final​ ​results is arbitrary and illegal.​ ​23.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​undisputed​ ​that​ ​the​ ​initial​ ​notification​ ​dated​ ​28.11.2020​ ​(Annexure​ ​A-2)​ ​had​ ​two​ ​vacancies​ ​in​ ​Hamirpur​ ​Division​ ​of​ ​which​ ​one​ ​was​ ​reserved​ ​for​ ​ST​ ​and​ ​one​ ​for​ ​EWS.​ ​Subsequently,​ ​revised​ ​vacancy​ ​memorandum​ ​dated​ ​19.05.2021​ ​(Annexure​ ​A-1)​ ​was​ ​issued​​before​​the​ ​declaration​ ​of​ ​the​ ​result,​ ​whereby​ ​the​ ​EWS​ ​vacancy​ ​was​ ​converted​ ​to​ ​UR​ ​on​ ​the​ ​ground​ ​that​ ​retention​ ​of​ ​both​ ​ST​ ​and​ ​EWS​ ​vacancies​ ​would​ ​result​ ​in​ ​100%​ ​reservation,​ ​which​ ​is​ ​impermissible​ ​in​ ​law.​ ​The​ ​final​ ​result​ ​was​ ​declared​ ​on​ ​25.05.2021,​ ​wherein​ ​the​​applicant,​​who​​applied​ ​under​ ​EWS​ ​category,​ ​did​ ​not​ ​get​ ​selected​ ​under​ ​UR​ ​merit,​ ​and​ ​Respondent​ ​No.​ ​3​ ​was​ ​selected​ ​against​ ​the​ ​UR​ ​vacancy.​ ​It​ ​has​ ​been​ ​specifically​​contended​​by​​the​​respondents​​that​​the​​vacancy​​position​​was​ ​changed​ ​prior​ ​to​ ​declaration​ ​of​ ​the​ ​result,​ ​and​ ​no​ ​EWS​ ​candidate​ ​was​ ​found eligible under UR merit.​ ​24.​ ​The​ ​applicant​ ​has​ ​relied​ ​upon​ ​various​ ​judicial​ ​pronouncements,​ ​including​ ​Haridas​ ​K.​ ​Vs.​ ​Union​ ​of​ ​India​ ​(SLP​​Nos.​​9375-9376​​of​​2017),​ ​to​​contend​​that​​once​​reservation​​benefits​​are​​recognized​​they​​cannot​​be​ ​arbitrarily​ ​withdrawn.​ ​However,​ ​these​ ​cases​ ​pertain​ ​to​ ​counting​ ​of​ ​temporary​ ​service​ ​for​ ​MACP​ ​and​ ​pensionary​ ​benefits,​ ​and​ ​the​ ​ratio​ ​of​ ​these​ ​judgments​ ​is​ ​not​ ​applicable​ ​to​ ​the​ ​instant​ ​case​ ​where​ ​the​ 2025.11.11 ​reallocation of vacancies prior to finalization of result is under question.​ SHIVAM 21:17:23 +05'30' ​11​ ​(O.A.No. 063/773/2021)​ ​25.​ ​The​ ​respondents​ ​have​ ​placed​ ​reliance​ ​on​ ​DoPT​ ​OM​ ​dated​ ​31.01.2019​ ​whereby​ ​EWS​ ​reservation​ ​was​ ​introduced​ ​and​ ​it​ ​was​ ​directed​ ​that​ ​10%​ ​EWS​ ​quota​ ​must​ ​operate​ ​within​ ​the​ ​overall​ ​50%​ ​ceiling​ ​of​ ​reservations.​ ​The​ ​respondents​ ​have​ ​further​ ​cited​ ​Indira​ ​Sawhney​ ​Vs.​ ​Union​ ​of​ ​India​​,​ ​(1992)​ ​Supp​ ​3​ ​SCC​ ​217​ ​and​ ​subsequent​ ​judgments,​​whereby​​it​​is​​mandated​​that​​reservation​​in​​any​​cadre​​cannot​ ​exceed 50%.​ ​26.​ ​This​​Tribunal​​has​​considered​​the​​matter​​and​​we​​find​​that​​the​​initial​ ​notification​ ​clearly​ ​described​ ​the​ ​vacancy​ ​position​ ​as​ ​tentative​ ​and​ ​subject​ ​to​ ​administrative​ ​revision,​ ​and​ ​the​ ​impugned​ ​memorandum​ ​dated​​19.05.2021​​(Annexure​​A-1)​​was​​issued​​prior​​to​​the​​declaration​​of​ ​the​​results.​​Therefore,​​the​​reallocation​​of​​vacancies​​cannot​​be​​said​​to​​be​ ​retrospective​ ​or​ ​arbitrary.​ ​Furthermore,​ ​we​ ​find​ ​that​ ​keeping​ ​both​ ​ST​ ​and​ ​EWS​ ​vacancies​ ​in​ ​a​ ​division​ ​with​ ​two​ ​posts​​would​​have​​resulted​​in​ ​100%​​reservation​​which​​is​​impermissible​​under​​law,​​and​​the​​reallocation​ ​of​ ​the​ ​EWS​ ​vacancy​ ​to​ ​UR​ ​was​ ​done​ ​in​ ​terms​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Indira​ ​Sawhney​ ​judgment​ ​(supra)​ ​as​ ​also​ ​the​ ​DoPT​ ​instructions​ ​dated​ ​31.01.2019.​ ​Whereas​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​had​ ​applied​ ​under​ ​EWS​ ​category,​ ​after​ ​the​ ​reallocation​​of​​the​​vacancy,​​the​​applicant​​did​​not​​secure​​a​​position​​in​​the​ ​UR​ ​merit.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​settled​ ​law​ ​that​ ​no​ ​candidate​ ​acquires​ ​a​​vested​​right​​to​ ​appointment based on a tentative vacancy notification.​ ​27.​ ​In​ ​light​ ​of​ ​the​ ​foregoing​ ​discussion,​ ​this​ ​Tribunal​ ​finds​ ​no​ ​reason​ ​to​ ​interfere​ ​with​ ​the​ ​impugned​ ​action​ ​of​ ​the​ ​respondents.​ ​Accordingly,​ ​the​ ​present​ ​Original​ ​Application​ ​is​ ​dismissed​ ​as​ ​being​ ​devoid​ ​of​ ​any​ ​merit. No order as to costs.​ ​(ANJALI BHAWRA)​ ​(RAMESH SINGH THAKUR)​ ​MEMBER (A)​ ​MEMBER (J)​ ​/s/​ 2025.11.11 SHIVAM 21:17:23 +05'30'