Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Indresh vs D/O Post on 19 January, 2026
(Reserved on 24.11.2025)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench
Allahabad
****
This is the 19th Day of January, 2026
Original Application No.924/2021
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial)
Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative)
1. Indresh aged about 35 years son of Paltu Maurya R/o Village and post
Bharauli, District Azamgarh.
2. Govind Yadav aged about 33 years son of Radheshyam Yadav R/o Village
and Post Shivpur, District Azamgarh.
........... Applicants
By Adv.: Shri Babu Nandan Singh
Versus
1. Union of India through its Secretary Ministry of Communication and
Information Technology Department of Post Dak Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. The Sr. Supdt. Of Post Offices, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh.
3. The Chief Post Master General, U.P. Circle, Lucknow.
............. Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Mahendra Prasad Mishra
ORDER
By Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Heard Shri Babu Nandan Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Mahendra Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Instant Original Application has been filed by the applicant on 09.11.2021 under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following main relief(s):-
"i. to issue a suitable order or direction to the respondents to allow the applicants to appear in the competitive examination in pursuant of notification dated 04.10.2021f or recruitment to the cadre of postman and mail Guard from eligible MTS and SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 2 GDS and result may be declare and successful candidates provide promotion. "
3. The brief facts of the case, as stated in the Original Application, are that the respondent's department issued a notification dated 04.10.2021 inviting applications for a competitive examination for recruitment to the cadre of Postman and Mail Guard from eligible MTS and GDS candidates for the vacancy year 2021. In pursuance of the said notification, the applicants submitted their applications along with the required documents within the prescribed time, claiming to fulfill the requisite conditions as per the notification.
3.1 Applicant No.1 was appointed on 23.02.2008 on the post of GDSMD/MC, Bhilampur Chapra Branch Post Office and Applicant No.2 was appointed on 01.02.2008 on the post of GDSMD/MC, Dewara Jadid II Branch Post Office. Both the applicants have completed more than 13 years of continuous regular service and thus fulfilled the eligibility conditions to appear in the competitive examination as per the notification dated 04.10.2021. Applicant No.1 had passed High School in the year 2001 and Applicant No.2 had passed High School in the year 2007, both with English as one of the subjects, through Adhikari Pariksha conducted by Gurukul Vishwavidyalaya, Vrindavan, Mathura, which at the relevant time was recognized and treated as equivalent to High School.
3.2 Despite submitting their applications in time, the applicants were not issued admit cards, whereas similarly situated candidates were issued admit cards for the examination. On enquiry, the applicants were orally informed by the concerned authority that they would not be permitted to appear in the examination on the ground that they had passed Adhikari Pariksha from Gurukul Vishwavidyalaya, Vrindavan, Mathura.
SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 3 3.3 Being aggrieved, the applicants made representations to the respondent authorities requesting that they be permitted to appear in the aforesaid examination; however, no action was taken by the respondents. Hence, the applicants have filed the present Original Application.
4. Counter Affidavit has been filed from the side of side of the respondents on 30.05.2025, wherein the primary objection has been raised that the applicants were not eligible to appear in the competitive examination for recruitment to the cadre of Postman for the vacancy year 2021, as per the notification dated 04.10.2021. According to the respondents, eligibility for GDS candidates required passing of High School (10th Standard) from a recognized Board and the applicants' qualification of Adhikari Pariksha from Gurukul Vishwavidyalaya, Vrindavan, Mathura does not fulfill this requirement in view of subsequent clarifications and withdrawal of recognition.
4.1 The respondents' counsel relied upon Letter No. Parishad-9/438 dated 17.08.2010 issued by the Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P., to contend that Adhikari Pariksha conducted up to 2008 could be treated as equivalent to High School only if passed in one single year with English as a compulsory subject, and not if the subjects were passed in different years. It is further stated that the State Government withdrew recognition of Adhikari Pariksha vide Government Order dated 10.07.2008, and therefore such qualification cannot be treated as valid for the Postman cadre examination held for the year 2021.
4.2 It is further stated that although the applicants' applications were received within time, mere receipt of application does not confer eligibility. On scrutiny, the applicants were found not eligible under the terms of the notification and therefore admit cards were not issued to them. The respondents assert that the decision was taken strictly in SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 4 accordance with departmental rules and the recruitment notification, and no arbitrariness or illegality is involved.
4.3 The respondents' counsel further submitted that the applicants were allowed to appear in the examination scheduled on 14.11.2021 only pursuant to the interim order dated 10.11.2021 passed by this Tribunal and such appearance was purely provisional, subject to the final outcome of the Original Application.
4.4 It is stated that the result of the applicants has been withheld and will be declared only if they are found eligible in law.
4.5 Lastly, the respondents deny the allegation of violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and contend that the Original Application is devoid of merit, the applicants being ineligible as per the notification and governing rules, and therefore liable to be dismissed.
5. Rejoinder Affidavit dated 05.12.2022 has also been filed on behalf of the applicants, wherein the averments made in the Counter Affidavit have been denied and the facts stated in the Original Application have been reiterated.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the action of the respondents in not permitting the applicants to appear in the competitive examination pursuant to notification dated 04.10.2021 is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the settled position of law. It is contended that the applicants had duly submitted their applications within the prescribed time along with all requisite documents, including proof of educational qualification. The sole ground on which the applicants were denied admit cards, namely that they had passed Adhikari Pariksha from Gurukul Vishwavidyalaya, Vrindavan, Mathura, is unsustainable, as the said SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 5 qualification obtained prior to the year 2008 has been consistently held to be equivalent to High School.
6.1 Learned counsel further submits that the issue regarding recognition of Adhikari Pariksha stands conclusively settled by the Full Bench judgment of the Hon'ble High Court, which is binding on the respondents. Despite the settled legal position, the respondents have acted in a mechanical and discriminatory manner, thereby violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is argued that the applicants satisfy all other conditions prescribed in the notification and that denial of opportunity to appear in the examination has caused them serious prejudice. Accordingly, the respondents are liable to be directed to permit the applicants to appear in the examination and to consider their candidature in accordance with law.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicants were rightly not permitted to appear in the competitive examination for recruitment to the cadre of Postman pursuant to the notification dated 04.10.2021, as they did not possess the prescribed educational qualification, namely High School (10th Standard) from a recognized Board, as on the relevant date.
7.1 It is submitted that the qualification of Adhikari Pariksha from Gurukul Vishwavidyalaya, Vrindavan, Mathura lost its recognition pursuant to the Government Order dated 10.07.2008 and, in any event, as clarified by the letter dated 17.08.2010 issued by the Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P., such qualification could be treated as equivalent only if passed in one single year with English as a compulsory subject. The applicants having failed to satisfy the eligibility criteria under the recruitment notification, their applications were rightly rejected upon scrutiny, and they were allowed to appear in the examination only in SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 6 compliance with the interim order of the Tribunal. The action of the respondents is strictly in accordance with the applicable rules and notification, involves no arbitrariness or discrimination, and therefore the Original Application is liable to be dismissed.
8. Having considered the pleadings on record, the Counter Affidavit filed by the respondents, the Rejoinder Affidavit filed by the applicants, and the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, this Tribunal finds that the core issue involved in the present Original Application pertains to the eligibility of the applicants to appear in the competitive examination for recruitment to the cadre of Postman pursuant to notification dated 04.10.2021, on the basis of the qualification of Adhikari Pariksha obtained from Gurukul Vishwavidyalaya, Vrindavan, Mathura.
9. It is an admitted position that the applicants passed Adhikari Pariksha prior to the year 2008 and that they had applied for the said examination within the prescribed time. Applicant No.1 had passed the said examination in the year 2001 and Applicant No.2 in the year 2007, and it is not disputed that both had English as one of the subjects and had passed the examination in a single year. The denial of permission to appear in the examination was solely on the ground that the said qualification was not treated as equivalent to High School. However, the said issue is no longer res integra. The Full Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Dhanpal and others vs. State of U.P. and others (Writ-A No. 48208 of 2012) has categorically held that Adhikari Pariksha Certificate issued by the Gurukul Viswavidyalaya, Vrindavan, Mathura, up to the year 2008 i.e. till it was recognized by the U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education as equivalent to High School, obtained with English as one of the subject, and passed in one year, is a valid qualification equivalent to High School, regardless of Gurukul having been declared a fake University by the UGC. The said Full Bench judgment has been consistently followed in several subsequent decisions SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 7 such as Urmila Devi vs. Stateof U.P., decided on 05.11.2024, Lal Chandra Maurya vs. Union of India & Ors decided on 04.10.2018 in OA No.935/2011 and the respondents have not placed on record any judgment taking a contrary view.
10. The reliance placed by the respondents on the Government Order dated 10.07.2008 and the letter dated 17.08.2010 issued by the Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad does not advance their case, inasmuch as the applicants had acquired the qualification much prior to the withdrawal of recognition. It is a settled principle of law that a qualification validly acquired when it was recognized cannot be retrospectively invalidated. In this regard, the action of the respondents in denying consideration of the applicants' candidature is arbitrary and unsustainable.
11. The Tribunal also takes note of the fact that the applicants were allowed to appear in the examination held on 14.11.2021 pursuant to the interim order dated 10.11.2021 passed by this Tribunal and their result has been withheld subject to the final outcome of the Original Application. Once the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the applicants were eligible in law, there remains no justification for withholding the declaration of their result.
12. In view of the aforesaid facts, settled legal position and binding precedent of the Full Bench of the High Court, this Tribunal holds that the action of the respondents in not permitting the applicants to appear in the examination and in treating them as ineligible is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
13. Accordingly, the Original Application is allowed. The respondents are directed to declare the result of the applicants for the competitive SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 8 examination for recruitment to the cadre of Postman held on 14.11.2021 and, if the applicants are found successful, to consider their candidature for appointment strictly in accordance with rules, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
14. No order as to costs.
All pending MAs, if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
(Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
Member (A) Member (J)
Sushil
SUSHIL KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA