Central Administrative Tribunal - Patna
Shreya vs Post Delhi Circle on 19 August, 2025
1 OA 164/2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PATNA BENCH
PATNA
O.A. 050/00164/2025
Reserved on : 12.08.2025
Pronounced on : 19.08.2025
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Kumar Rajesh Chandra, Administrative Member
Hon'ble Mr. Rajveer Singh Verma, Judicial Member
In the matter of :
Shreya,
Female, aged about 25 years, D/o Late Chaitanya Bharti,
W/o Sonu Babu, Resident Village- Ramdiri, PS- Matihani,
District- Begusarai.
.............Applicant
VS.
1. The Government of India Through the Secretary, Ministry
of Communication, Department of Post, Dak Bhawan,
Sansad Marg, New Delhi- 110001.
2. The Director, Postal Department, Bihar Circle, GPO, Patna-
800001.
3. The Chief Post Master General, Bihar Circle, Patna- 800001.
4. The Post Master General, Regional Office, Bhagalpur-
812001.
5. The Superintendent, Post Offices, Begusarai Division,
Begusarai- 851101.
6. The Inspector of Post, East Sub-Division, Begusarai
Division, Begusarai- 851101.
........ Respondents
For The Applicant(s): Mr. Jayant Kumar Karn, Counsel
For The Respondent(s): Mr. Rabindra Kumar Choubey, ASC
Digitally signed by SONALI LAL
SONALI
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65=
1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone=
d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f
9970cce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar,
SERIALNUMBER=
b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456a
dc533ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL
LAL
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Location:
Date: 2025.08.20 11:53:35+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
2 OA 164/2025
ORDER
Per : Hon'ble Kumar Rajesh Chandra, Administrative Member The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 praying for the following relief:
"a. Set aside/ quash order dated 06.02.2025 and 07.02.2025 contained in A1/Estt/Engagement/GDSBPM/Bikrampur B.O. 2024 whereby and under the applicant has been terminated from service. b. After setting aside order dated 06.02.2025 and covering letter dated 07.02.2025 all consequential benefits along with continuity in service should also be granted in favour of the applicant. c. Passing any other order/orders as your lordship may deem fit and proper."
2. For the sake of clarity, facts in the case as stated by the applicant in her OA, are delineated and discussed herein under :-
The applicant was provisionally selected for engagement as Gramin Dak Sevak (BPM) pursuant to Notification dated 12.07.2024, having fulfilled the prescribed eligibility of 10th pass with knowledge of local language, which for the Bihar Circle was notified as Hindi. Although the CBSE 10th mark sheet submitted by the applicant did not explicitly record Hindi as a subject, the respondents, vide letter dated 20.11.2024, permitted submission of proof of passing Hindi in any class, whether 10th, 12th, or higher. In compliance, the applicant produced her 12th standard certificate issued by the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna, showing 'Rashtra Bhasha Hindi' as a subject, as well as her B.Com. (Hons.) statement of marks issued by LNMU, Darbhanga, reflecting Hindi as a subsidiary paper, thereby fully satisfying the requirement. Digitally signed by SONALI LAL SONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f 9970cce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456a dc533ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL LAL Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.20 11:53:35+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 3 OA 164/2025 The respondents, after due verification, deputed her for basic training from 02.12.2024 to 04.12.2024, which she completed successfully, and thereafter issued a provisional engagement letter on 09.12.2024. She joined as BPM, Bikrampur Branch on 17.12.2024, executed the charge report, and commenced her duties. However, vide letter dated 06.02.2025, her services were terminated without assigning any reason and without issuance of any show cause notice or affording an opportunity of hearing. On making an inquiry, she learnt that the ground for termination was the alleged non-passing of Hindi at the 10th standard level, despite her having produced certificates proving Hindi proficiency in higher classes.
3.1 Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned letter dated 06.02.2025, terminating the applicant's services, is contrary to the eligibility provisions contained in the recruitment notification dated 12.07.2024 as well as the departmental clarification dated 20.11.2024.
The said clarification categorically recognizes that knowledge of the local language may be established by having studied it in higher classes than 10th standard. The applicant has placed on record her 12th standard certificate (BSEB, Patna) showing 'Rashtra Bhasha Hindi' and her B.Com. (Hons.) mark sheet (LNMU, Darbhanga) showing Hindi as a subsidiary paper, which fully satisfies the requirement. The respondents' refusal to accept these valid documents is illegal and unsustainable.
3.2 Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the termination was effected without issuance of any show cause notice, without informing the applicant of the alleged deficiency, and without affording her an opportunity of hearing. Such action is per se void being in gross breach of Digitally signed by SONALI LAL SONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f 9970cce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456a dc533ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL LAL Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.20 11:53:35+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 4 OA 164/2025 the maxim audi alteram partem that is the basic principle of natural justice.
3.3 Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned letter is bereft of any reasons. The absence of reasons renders the order arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, as reasoned decisions are a basic facet of fairness in administrative action. The arbitrary and non-
speaking termination order, passed without considering her submitted documents, is a clear instance of non-application of mind, and is tainted with mala fides which resulted in her unlawful termination.
3.4 Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the respondents have acted in a discriminatory manner by confirming the services of one Shri Preetam Kumar in an identical factual situation while denying similar relief to the applicant. This differential treatment, without any intelligible differentia or rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved, offends Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The said action is not only contrary to the departmental clarification dated 20.11.2024 in the case of Preetam Kumar--where it was specifically held that knowledge of the local language in higher classes suffices--but also discriminatory, as her case is identically situated yet has been treated differently.
3.5 Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the abrupt termination after the applicant had completed training, received a provisional appointment letter, joined her post, and started performing her duties, without any fault attributable to her, demonstrates whimsical, arbitrary, and capricious conduct on the part of the respondents.
4.1 Per contra, Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the applicant's engagement as GDS BPM, Bikrampur BO, was vitiated from Digitally signed by SONALI LAL SONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f 9970cce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456a dc533ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL LAL Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.20 11:53:35+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 5 OA 164/2025 inception due to her deliberate and material misrepresentation of facts in the online application. The mandatory eligibility condition under Para
5.2(b) of the Descriptive Notification dated 12.07.2024 required that a candidate must have studied the local language (Hindi, in the case of Bihar) at least up to the 10th standard. However, in her online application, the applicant falsely entered "Hindi A/Hindi B" as subjects in her 10th standard mark sheet, whereas the original certificate produced during DV-
1 on 25.10.2024 revealed "Sanskrit" in place of Hindi. This discrepancy was in direct violation of Rule 8(x) of the Selection Criteria, which clearly stipulates that applications containing incomplete or incorrect data or wrong documents are liable to outright rejection.
4.2 Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the initial verifying officer, Shri Rajiv Kumar, IP(PG), correctly marked the application "Rejected" after tallying the data with the original documents.
However, due to collusion between the applicant and the then SPOs, Begusarai, this rejection was overridden in contravention of the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) dated 16.08.2024. Subsequent DV-2 verification on 04.11.2024 again confirmed the mismatch, leading to rejection in the system. Yet, within days, the SPOs sought reinstatement of the candidature without assigning any valid reason, in complete disregard of departmental guidelines. This manipulation of procedure directly violated Point 5.2(b) and Annexure-III of the Notification, and undermined the mandatory requirement of local language proficiency.
4.3 Learned Counsel for the respondents further submits that the departmental inquiry established that the applicant's engagement was irregular, based on false data entry and ineligibility, and was the result of Digitally signed by SONALI LAL SONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f 9970cce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456a dc533ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL LAL Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.20 11:53:35+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 6 OA 164/2025 a conspiracy to secure appointment. Accordingly, under Rule 8(1) of the GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2020, which permits termination within three years of engagement without assigning reason, the applicant's services were terminated vide memo dated 06.02.2025. The plea of violation of natural justice is misconceived in this context, as the action was a termination simpliciter under Rule 8(1), not a punitive dismissal requiring full inquiry under disciplinary rules. 4.4 Learned Counsel for the respondents further submits that the present OA is not maintainable as the applicant has failed to exhaust the departmental remedy of review under Rule 16 of the GDS Rules, which is permissible within six months, as clarified in D.G. P&T letter dated 04.05.1965. Section 19 of the CAT Act, 1985 requires exhaustion of departmental remedies before invoking the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Tribunal. The reliance placed on the case of Shri Pritam Kumar is misplaced and factually distinguishable, as that matter concerned only proof of local language, whereas the present case involves intentional false declaration of educational details, suppression of ineligibility, and procedural manipulation. In these circumstances, the termination order is legal, proper, and calls for no interference.
5. In reply to the Written Statement filed by the respondents, the applicant has filed her rejoinder rebutting the submission of the respondents:-
5.1 Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the respondents' allegations of "wrong data entry" and "ineligibility" are wholly misconceived and contrary to the record. The applicant did not conceal or Digitally signed by SONALI LAL SONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f 9970cce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456a dc533ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL LAL Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.20 11:53:35+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 7 OA 164/2025 misrepresent any information; she disclosed her educational qualifications, which include having studied Hindi as a subject in higher classes beyond the 10th standard, as evidenced by her 12th standard certificate and B.Com. mark sheet. The respondents' own departmental clarification dated 20.11.2024 specifically allows proof of local language proficiency through study in higher classes, which fully covers the applicant's case. The reliance on "Hindi A/Hindi B" versus "Sanskrit" in the 10th mark sheet is misplaced, as the qualification requirement is knowledge of the local language, not its mandatory presence in the 10th standard mark sheet alone. The so-called "wrong entry" was not intentional, nor material to eligibility, and was rectified at the earliest opportunity.
5.2 Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the respondents' assertion of "collusion" with the then SPOs Begusarai is a bald, unsubstantiated allegation unsupported by any cogent evidence, seemingly advanced to retrospectively justify an arbitrary termination. 5.3 Further, Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the action of termination without issuing any notice, without supplying reasons, and without affording the applicant an opportunity of hearing is in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice and settled law. The respondents' attempt to bypass this by invoking Rule 8(1) of the GDS Conduct and Engagement Rules, 2020 is legally untenable, as that provision does not permit dispensing with due process in cases where allegations of misconduct or misrepresentation are made. The respondents' contention that the applicant should have pursued a departmental review before approaching this Tribunal is equally Digitally signed by SONALI LAL SONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f 9970cce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456a dc533ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL LAL Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.20 11:53:35+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 8 OA 164/2025 unfounded; the remedy under Rule 16 is discretionary and not a bar to invoking the jurisdiction under Section 19 of the CAT Act, especially where the order is ex facie illegal and violative of constitutional guarantees.
5.4 Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the plea that this matter is distinguishable from the case of Shri Preetam Kumar is also untenable, as the principle of parity applies where the factual matrix is materially identical.
5.5 Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the controversy sought to be raised by the respondents regarding the applicant's eligibility, on the ground that she had Sanskrit and not Hindi at the Matriculation level, is no longer res integra. This precise issue has already been settled in successive judicial pronouncements of this Hon'ble Tribunal, including in Vidushi Tripathi v. Union of India (O.A. No. 282/2021, decided on 26.04.2023), where the Tribunal categorically held that a candidate cannot be disqualified merely for not having Hindi as a subject at Matriculation if she has studied Hindi at a higher level or has Sanskrit, which is the mother language of Hindi and shares the same script. While deciding O.A. No. 539/2011, this Tribunal observed that the Postal Department's insistence on Hindi at Matriculation alone was illogical, and that a person well-versed in Sanskrit can efficiently speak and write Hindi. The Tribunal further held that rejection of candidature on such a hyper-technical ground was unjustified and contrary to logic, good conscience, and the purpose of recruitment, which is to ensure proficiency in the local language. This view was affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court in CWJC No. 9001/2015, thereby attaining finality. Digitally signed by SONALI LAL
SONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f 9970cce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456a dc533ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL LAL Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.20 11:53:35+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 9 OA 164/2025 5.6 Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that in the present case, the applicant is similarly situated to Ms. Vidushi Tripathi. She has studied Hindi at higher levels and possesses proficiency in the local language, and the presence of Sanskrit in her Matriculation does not diminish that fact. The respondents' attempt to revive an issue already settled by binding precedent is not only impermissible in law but also reflects arbitrary and discriminatory action, particularly when similarly placed candidates have been found eligible. The ratio laid down in Vidushi Tripathi squarely applies, and the impugned termination is liable to be set aside on the ground of parity as well as settled legal position.
6. Heard rival contentions of the parties. Perused material on record.
6.1 The educational qualification as notified for the post of GDS is extracted below:-
"5.2 Qualification As on the Date of Notification:
1. Educational Qualification
(a) ..............
(b) The applicant should have studied the local language at least up to 10th standard from a recognized board. The detail of post-wise local language prescribed by the Department is given in the Annexure-III.
(c) ....................."
The phrase 'at least' does not mean that if the applicant has studied such local language in higher class then it will be ignored and not considered. It is not in dispute that the applicant had Sanskrit at the Matriculation level and has studied Hindi at higher levels. The respondents' case is that the online application contained incorrect particulars. However, the primary ground for termination, as reflected from records, relates to the absence of Digitally signed by SONALI LAL SONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f 9970cce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456a dc533ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL LAL Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.20 11:53:35+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 10 OA 164/2025 Hindi at the Matriculation level. The issue whether Sanskrit at Matriculation satisfies the requirement of knowledge of Hindi/local language stands concluded by this Tribunal in Vidushi Tripathi (supra) and OA No. 539/2011. In those cases, the Tribunal held that a candidate well-versed in Sanskrit can efficiently read and write Hindi, and disqualification on the ground of not having Hindi in Matriculation is unjustified when Hindi is present at higher levels or proficiency can otherwise be established. The ratio in those cases applies squarely here, and no distinguishing factor has been shown by the respondents. The plea of false declaration, in the present factual matrix, appears more in the nature of a technical error than a substantive misrepresentation, given that the applicant's language proficiency was never in doubt and was verifiable from higher qualification records. 6.2 The contention of the applicant that the respondents have acted in a discriminatory manner, with regard to mandatory requirement of local language proficiency, by confirming the services of one Shri Preetam Kumar in an identical factual situation while denying similar relief to the applicant is fully supported by the letter dated 20.11.2024 confirming the candidature of Preetam Kumar, observing as under :-
"..........
3. Therefore, the candidate is eligible for engagement of GDS, he has studied local language in higher class. Circle is accordingly requested to allow engagement of the candidate. CEPT may provide window to update the turn up status by EA.
..............."
6.3 With regard to the argument of Learned Counsel for the respondents about collusion between the applicant and the then SPOs Digitally signed by SONALI LAL SONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f 9970cce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456a dc533ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL LAL Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.20 11:53:35+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 11 OA 164/2025 Begusarai we hold that this is an allegation unsupported by any cogent evidence, seemingly advanced to retrospectively justify an arbitrary termination. In the departmental action being initiated against the said SPO there is mention of his unduly favouring the applicant without any cogent reason that the so-called beneficiary extracted this benefit in collusion with that charged officer. The argument of counsel for respondent that beneficiary must have colluded appears to be nothing but his figment of imagination. If we accept such type of preposterous argument then the other officers who held contrary view should also be charged with conniving with the potential occupant of the post that the applicant has vacated subsequent to her removal. An officer in the hierarchy may not always agree with the view of his sub-ordinate and without any evidence, a charge of collusion or malafide cannot be made and substantiated.
6.4 As regards the contention on non-exhaustion of remedies under Rule 16, it is settled law that where the impugned order is ex facie contrary to binding judicial precedent, the Tribunal can exercise jurisdiction to prevent manifest injustice. 6.5 In view of the above discussion, the impugned order is found to be unsustainable in law. We, therefore, quash and set aside the order dated 06.02.2025 and 07.02.2025 contained in A1/ Estt /Engagement /GDSBPM / Bikrampur B.O. 2024 whereby and under which the applicant has been terminated from service. The respondents are directed to reinstate the applicant with all consequential benefits within a period of Digitally signed by SONALI LAL SONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f 9970cce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456a dc533ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL LAL Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.20 11:53:35+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 12 OA 164/2025 sixty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, subject to her fulfilling all other eligibility conditions. 6.6 O.A. stands allowed in the above terms. No order as to costs.
(Rajveer Singh Verma) (Kumar Rajesh Chandra) Judicial Member Administrative Member sl Digitally signed by SONALI LAL SONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f 9970cce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456a dc533ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL LAL Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.20 11:53:35+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0