Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow
Km Rubi vs Union Of India on 2 December, 2025
CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00472/2016 Km Rubi Vs. UOI & Ors.
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
LUCKNOW BENCH LUCKNOW
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 332/00472 of 2016
Dated, this 2nd day of December, 2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Ojha, Member- Judicial
Hon'ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative
Km Rubi, aged about 20 years, daughter of Ram Sunder, Resident of
Village-Daulatpur, Post-Judupur (Hasanpur), District-Sultanpur-
227808, U.P. India.
.....Applicant
By Advocate: Shri J.N. Mishra
VERSUS
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Department of Posts, Dak
Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi.
2. Chief Post Master, General Post Office, U.P. Circle, Lucknow.
3. Director Postal Services, Lucknow U.P. Region, Offices of the Chief
Post Master General, Lucknow.
4. Superintendent of Post Office, Sultanpur Division,
Sultanpur/Amethi.
.....Respondents
By Advocate: Smt. Prayagmati Gupta
ORDER (ORAL)
Per Hon'ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative In this case relating to termination of Gramin Dak Sevak's (GDS) engagement, the applicant has sought following reliefs:
"(a) To issue an appropriate order or directions to set aside the impugned order Memo no.-B-3/338-B/Saresar (Jagdishpur) Amethi/2016 at Sultanpur dated 05.10.2016, which had been cancelled by the opposite party no. 4 from the post of GDS B.P.M. A copy is already annexed as Annexure No. A-1 to this Original Application.
(b) To issue an appropriate order or directions thereby directing the opposite parties to allow the applicant to assign the work on the post of GDS B.P.M. in Saresar (Jagdishpur) Amethi District Sultanpur in pursuance of the appointment/engagement letter dated 19.05.2016 and to direct the opposite parties to pay her salaries and other allowances regularly.Page 1 of 7
CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00472/2016 Km Rubi Vs. UOI & Ors.
(c) To issue an appropriate order or directions which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit just and proper in the circumstances of the case be also awarded to the applicant against the opposite parties.
(d) To award the cost of this Original Application to the applicant against the opposite parties."
2.1 The facts of the case are that the applicant applied for the post of GDS BPM Saresar, Sultanpur in response to notification dated 29.01.2016. Among 49 candidates who applied for the said post, a panel of top five candidates was drawn by the respondents in terms of merit and in that panel the applicant was placed at serial number 3. The first two candidates withdrew their candidature and the applicant was offered engagement as GDS vide order dated 19.05.2016 after verification of her documents and completion of other formalities and she took charge of the post of GDS BPM Saresar on 30.05.2016. 2.2 In the meantime, the respondents noticed that in their notification dated 29.01.2016 the educational qualification for the post of GDS was mentioned as „Matric/High School or equivalent‟ while in the Department of Posts instructions dated 14.01.2015 the educational qualification was prescribed as „Secondary School Examination pass certificate of 10th standard conducted by any recognized Board of School Education in India shall be mandatory qualification for all approved categories of Gramin Dak Sevaks referred to in Rule 3(d) of the GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011 as amended from time to time‟ . Having noticed the difference in mandatory educational qualifications, the respondents determined that the notification dated 29.01.2016 had been issued wrongly and they cancelled it vide order dated 05.10.2016 and also terminated the applicant's engagement vide order dated 05.10.2016 invoking rule 8(2) of the GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011. Aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this OA.
Page 2 of 7 CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00472/2016 Km Rubi Vs. UOI & Ors.
3. The applicant's contention is that the respondents have terminated her engagement as GDS arbitrarily as she met the eligibility criteria and was appointed as per due process and that such termination infringed her rights.
4. Per contra, the respondents state that the notification dated 29.01.2016 was cancelled and the applicant's engagement was terminated in compliance to Circle Office's letter dated 19.07.2016 as it was wrongly issued in terms of the mandatory educational qualification for the post of GDS as per the instructions dated 14.01.2015; it is stated that equivalent pass examination is not valid for engagement of GDS as per instructions dated 14.01.2015.
5. We have heard both the parties. Learned counsel for the respondents avers that the applicant's engagement was terminated by the respondents in due exercise of their power under rule 8 of the GDS (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2011.
6.1 It is not in dispute that the applicant was appointed to the post of GDS observing the process prescribed in terms of the notification dated 29.01.2016.
6.2 The only reason advanced by the respondents for termination of the applicant's engagement as GDS is that in the notification dated 29.01.2016 the educational qualification specified was different from the educational qualification prescribed vide departmental instructions dated 14.01.2015. A perusal of the notification dated 29.01.2016 shows that the educational qualification for the post of GDS was mentioned as „Matric/High School or equivalent‟ therein. It is noted that the Department of Posts, vide instructions titled „Revised eligibility criteria for engagement to GDS posts‟ dated 14.01.2015 prescribed the educational qualification as „Secondary School Examination pass certificate of 10th Page 3 of 7 CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00472/2016 Km Rubi Vs. UOI & Ors. standard conducted by any recognized Board of School Education in India‟ . It is observed that the common qualification in the notification dated 29.01.2016 as well as in the instructions dated 14.01.2015 is Class X (Matric/High School) from a recognized Board of School Education. A perusal of the applicant's educational qualification (Annexure 3 of the OA) reveals that she has passed High School Examination 2014 conducted by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Uttar Pradesh. It is observed that the applicant's educational qualification meets the criteria mentioned in the notification dated 29.01.2016 as well as the instructions dated 14.01.2015. Given this position, the difference in educational qualification mentioned in the notification dated 29.01.2016 and the instructions dated 14.01.2015 is not a valid ground to terminate the applicant's engagement, in our view. 6.3 The respondents contend that they had to cancel the notification dated 29.01.2016 on account of the difference in educational qualification mentioned therein from the education qualification prescribed in the instructions dated 14.01.2015. No doubt, the educational qualification mentioned in the notification dated 29.01.2016 is different from the educational qualification prescribed in the instructions dated 14.01.2015. What is relevant though is the nature of the difference. Admittedly, the only material difference is that in addition to Class X (Matric/High School) prescribed vide the instructions dated 14.01.2015, the educational qualification equivalent to Matric/High School has been mentioned in the notification dated 29.01.2016. It is evident that the notification dated 29.01.2016, by adding the educational qualification 'equivalent to Matric/High School' only enlarged the field of eligibility and it did not restrict the field of eligibility for any person in terms of the educational qualification prescribed vide instructions dated 14.01.2015. In view of these Page 4 of 7 CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00472/2016 Km Rubi Vs. UOI & Ors. circumstances, we fail to comprehend why the respondents resorted to cancellation of the notification dated 29.01.2016 itself when they could have brought it in alignment with the instructions dated 14.01.2015 by issuing a corrigendum.
6.4 Another relevant factor to be considered is the stage at which the notification dated 29.01.2016 was cancelled. It is noted that the respondents realised the discrepancy in the educational qualification mentioned in the notification dated 29.01.2016 only after the recruitment process had been completed and the applicant had joined the post of GDS. It is observed that the belated cancellation of the notification along with the applicant's engagement affected the applicant's right to continue as GDS as she had been selected through the process notified.
6.5 Coming to the averment of learned counsel for respondents in regard to rule 8 of the GDS (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2011, it is seen that the rule 8 provides for termination of engagement of GDS in the following terms:
"8. Termination of Engagement (1) The engagement of a Sevak who has not already rendered more than three years' continuous service from the date of his engagement shall be liable to be terminated at any time by a notice in writing given either by the Sevak to the Recruiting Authority or by the Recruiting Authority to the Sevak; (2) The period of such notice shall be one month:
Provided that the service of any such Sevak may be terminated forthwith and on such termination, the Sevak shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of the Basic Time Related Continuity Allowance plus Dearness Allowance as admissible for the period of the notice at the same rate at which he was drawing them immediately before the termination of his service or, as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of one month."
(emphasis supplied) While the rule provides for termination of engagement of GDS with one month's notice, it is observed that such termination must be on a reasonable ground and it cannot be invoked in a whimsical or arbitrary Page 5 of 7 CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00472/2016 Km Rubi Vs. UOI & Ors. manner. As discussed in paragraphs 6.1 to 6.4 above, we do not think that the applicant's termination of engagement can be held to be reasonable or non-arbitrary.
6.6 It is noted that in terms of rule 4(3) reproduced below, the respondents have the power to review the records relating to engagement of GDS and make an order after giving an opportunity of hearing:
"4(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, any authority superior to the Recruiting Authority as shown in the Schedule, may, at any time, either on its own motion or otherwise call for the records relating to the engagement of Gramin Dak Sevaks made by the Recruiting Authority, and if such Recruiting Authority appears -
(a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by nay law or rules time being in force; or
(b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested; or
(c) to have acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, such superior authority may, after giving an opportunity of being heard, make such order as it deems fit."
(emphasis supplied) However, it is observed that no opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the applicant.
6.7 Finally, we address the aspect that the respondents terminated the applicant's engagement as GDS in compliance to Circle Office's letter dated 19.07.2016. It is trite that if an order is passed on the dictation of the higher authority, the order becomes invalid on the ground of behest or diktat of the higher authority. In the instant case it is observed that it is in compliance to the Circle Office letter dated 19.07.2016 that the respondent no. 4 passed the impugned order dated 05.10.2016, thereby vitiating the exercise.
Page 6 of 7
CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00472/2016 Km Rubi Vs. UOI & Ors. 6.8 To conclude, the impugned order dated 05.10.2016 is hit by the vice of arbitrariness as well as violation of procedure and it cannot be sustained in law.
7.1 In view of the foregoing, the order dated 05.10.2016 is quashed and set aside.
7.2 The respondents are directed to reinstate the applicant in the post to which she was appointed within three months of receipt of certified copy of this order.
7.3 This OA is disposed of in above terms.
7.4 Pending MAs, if any, also stand disposed of.
7.5 The Parties shall bear their own costs.
(Pankaj Kumar) (Justice Anil Kumar Ojha)
Member (A) Member (J)
vidya
Vidya Ben Digitally signed by
Vidya Ben Waghela
Waghela Date: 2025.12.03
12:25:50 +05'30'
Page 7 of 7