Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Ajay Kumar Pandey vs D/O Post on 20 November, 2025
(Reserved on 30.10.2025)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD
Pronounced on 20th day of November, 2025
Original Application No.204 of 2013
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial)
Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative)
1. Ajay Kumar Pandey, S/o Sri Sushil kumar Pandey, R/o Village &
Post Baraon, District Deoria
2. Ram Pati Pandey, S/o Raj Narayan Pandey, R/o Village Sri Nagar
Kothuwa, Post Jogia Bujurg, District Deoria
....Applicants
PUNIT KUMAR
MISHRA
By Advocate: Shri Vinod Kumar
VERSUS
1. Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Tele
Communication, Sansad Marg, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi
2. Post Master General, Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur
3. Superintendent of Post Office, Deoria Region, Deoria
4. Sri Vipin Kumar Pandey, S/o Sri Suresh Pandey, R/o Village &
Post Baraon, District Deoria
By Advocate: Shri Rajni Kant Rai
ORDER
By Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial):-
Heard Shri Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Rajni Kant Rai, learned counsel for the respondents at the time of hearing.
2. This Original Application is filed by the applicant, under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, seeking following reliefs:-
8. (i) To issue an order/direction in the suitable nature directing the respondents Authorities to conclude the further enquiry in the matter in respect of illegal appointment of respondent-4.
(ii) To issue an order/direction in the suitable nature directing the respondents Authorities to cancel the appointment letter of respondent-4 as the same is illegal and unfair means.
(iii) To issue an order/direction in the suitable nature directing the respondents Authorities to issue fresh Notification on the post of GDS/Mail Delivery, Post Office Baraon, District Deoria
(iv) To issue any order or direction, which this Hon‟ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. The brief facts of the case as narrated in Original Application is that an advertisement was published by respondent-3 on 30.11.2009 to fill the post of Post-master in the Post Office-Baraon, District Deoria, but the said advertisement was neither published in the PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA local newspaper nor pasted in the notice Board. The said advertisement was purposely issued only for informing the respondent-4. Thereafter, the respondent-4, having Prathma passed by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad, was selected on the basis of marks obtained in Prathma Examination.
3.1 In view thereof, the applicant-2 filed a complaint on 21.08.2010 and 03.11.2010, by which, the applicant-2 pointed out the irregularities /illegalities as committed by the Authorities. Subsequently, a letter was issued to the applicant- 2 on 05.07.2011, by which, it was informed that an inquiry proceeding was initiated on his complaint. 3.2 Subsequently, the respondent-4 was terminated by the respondents Authorities vide order dated 17.01.2012 as the DIOS, Deoria furnished a letter dated 10.07.2009 before the Authority, showing therein different date of birth of the repsondnet-4 as 08.07.1981 and 12.10.1982 in matriculation/Prathma. The order dated 17.01.2012 was challenged before this Court by respondent-4 in O.A. No.121/2012, which was dismissed as infructuous vide order dated 10.02.2012 as the Page 2 of 9 respondents cancelled the termination order of the applicant on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was provided to the respondent-4 before issuance of termination order. Since the inquiry on the compliant made by applicant-2 against the respondent-4 is still pending and respondent-4 is continuing in the post in question, the applicants have constrained to knock the door of this Tribunal.
4. On the other hand, the Respondents have filed counter affidavit on 21.07.2013, wherein it has been stated that the post of GDS had fallen vacant due on the superannuation of Mr. Madan Mohan Pandey, after receiving the proper approval from the Regional office, PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA Gorakhjpur vide letter dated 19.11.2009. Thereafter, the office of the respondents issued a Notification for appointment on the said post vide Memo No.30.11.2009. The proforma of advertisement and application format was sent to District Employment Officer, Deoria Branch Postmaster Baraon, Sub Postmaster Madanpur Deoria, Post master Deoria, Station Officer, Police Station, Madanpur, Deoria, BDO Barhaj, Deoria, Tehsildar, Barhaj, Deoria, Supdt. Of Post Officer, Deoria Division through registered Letter No.2410 to 2417 on 30.11.2009 and was also posted over the Notice Board.
4.1 Thereafter, seven applications were received in the office and respondent-4 was on top of the merit list as per the marks obtained in High School Examination. Therefore, he was appointed on contractual basis. Since, the applicants have not applied for the aforesaid advertisement; they have no locus standi to challenge the selection process. Hence, original application is liable to be dismissed.
5. Rejoinder Affidavit has not been filed by the applicants in spite of several opportunities granted to them.
Page 3 of 9
6. Notice was issued to the respondent-4 on 29.12.2013 and no unserved notice was returned back. Therefore, vide order dated 18.08.2025 notice upon respondent-4 was deemed to be sufficient.
7. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the respondent-4 passed the Prathama from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Allahabad and as per settled law, the certificate issued by the said Institution is not a recognized degree/qualification equivalent to High School and as such, the respondent-4 cannot be appointed. Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad is a fake institution. The respondent-4 did not possess the requisite qualification and as such, his appointment PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA may be cancelled.
7.1 Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that as per inquiry, the respondent-4 disclosed different date of birth in the different year while appearing the High School Examination. The official respondents have not published the advertisement, therefore, the applicant-1 could not apply for the aforesaid post though he was eligible for appointment. Hence, the appointment of respondent-4 may be cancelled and a direction may be given upon the official respondents to publish a fresh advertisement.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants and submitted that the Govt. of India, Ministry of Human Resources Development issued notification dated 21.11.2006, by which, Prathma Examination, conducted by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad is equivalent to High School /Matriculation for the purposes of employment. Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad is a recognized institute. The respondent-4 was on top of the list as per the marks obtained in Prathma examination, which is equivalent to High School. He was rightly appointed to the said Page 4 of 9 post. The applicants have not applied pursuant to the aforesaid Advertisement, therefore, they are not entitled to any relief.
9. We have considered the arguments, so raised by learned counsels for both the parties and perused the records.
10. From perusal of the records, it appears that admittedly, the applicants have not applied for the post in question and have not participated in the selection process for the post in question. The applicants have no locus standi to file the instant original application against the respondent-4 as none of the statutory right of the applicants are affected because the respondents have invited applications for the PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA said post and the applicants have not filled up the application form for appointment. As per Section 19 (1) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 only „a person aggrieved by any order pertaining to any matter within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal may make an application to the Tribunal for the redressal of his grievance.‟
11. Further, It is settled law that the Tribunal shall hear the cases of only aggrieved individuals. This Court has no jurisdiction to hear cases regarding the admissibility of public interest litigations. The Apex Court in case of Dr. Duryodhan Sahu v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra, vide its order dated 25.08.1998 delineates clear boundaries regarding the jurisdiction of Administrative Tribunals, particularly concerning the admissibility of public interest litigations. By asserting that only directly aggrieved individuals may approach these Tribunals, the Court safeguards the intended purpose of Tribunals to efficiently address specific service-related grievances without being encumbered by broader public concerns. Additionally, the judgment underscores the necessity for Tribunals to adhere strictly to established qualifications and expert opinions in their adjudicatory processes. Overall, this ruling Page 5 of 9 reinforces the hierarchical and functional distinctions within the Indian judicial system, ensuring that each judicial body operates within its designated scope to maintain judicial efficiency and integrity.
12. In case of Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. State of W.B., (2004) 3 SCC 349, the Apex Court held:
"16. As noted supra, a time has come to weed out the petitions, which though titled as public interest litigations are in essence something else. It is shocking to note that courts are flooded with a large number of so-called public interest litigations where even a minuscule percentage can legitimately be called public interest litigations. Though the parameters of public interest litigation have been indicated by this Court in a large number of cases, yet unmindful of the real intentions and objectives, courts are entertaining such petitions and wasting valuable judicial time PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA which, as noted above, could be otherwise utilized for disposal of genuine cases."
13. Further, the Central Administrative Tribunal does not replace High Courts but function in a supplementary capacity. This distinction reinforces the notion that PILs, which often address widespread public concerns beyond individual grievances, fall outside the Tribunals' jurisdiction.
14. Therefore, in view of the above authorative law on the subject, we find that the instant application is not maintainable on behalf of the applicants and accordingly the same is liable to be dismissed.
15. However, before parting with the order, it is noted that the notices were issued to the respondent-4, but he has not put his appearance. Admittedly, the certificate issued by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad is not a valid certificate and cannot be treated as equivalent to High School certificate examination as per the settled law by the Apex Court.
Page 6 of 9
16. The similar issue fell for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan Pradesh V.S. Sardarshahar & Anr. Vs. Union of India and others J.T. 2010 (6) S.C. 306 and the question before the Supreme Court was "As to whether persons who hold either the degree or diploma of "Vaidya Visharad" or "Ayurved Ratna" from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag/Allahabad which are not included as recognized qualification in Schedule II of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 (hereinafter called as the „Act 1970‟) have a right to practice in medical sciences." The Supreme Court considered the various previous rulings and concluded in para-43 as under:-
PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA „43. At the cost of repetition, it may be pertinent to mention here that in view of the above, we have reached to the following inescapable conclusions :-
(I) Hindi Sahitya Sammelan is neither a University/Deemed University nor an Educational Board.
(II) It is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act.
(III) It is not an educational institution imparting education in any subject inasmuch as the Ayurveda or any other branch of medical field.
(IV) No school/college imparting education in any subject is affiliated to it. Nor Hindi Sahitya Sammelan is affiliated to any University/Board.
(V) Hindi Sahitya Sammelan has got no recognition from the Statutory Authority after 1967. No attempt had ever been made by the Society to get recognition as required under Section 14 of the Act, 1970 and further did not seek modification of entry No. 105 in II Schedule to the Act, 1970.
(VI) Hindi Sahitya Sammelan only conducts examinations without verifying as to whether the candidate has some 2 elementary/basic education or has attended classes in Ayurveda in any recognized college.
(VII) After commencement of Act, 1970, a person not possessing the qualification prescribed in Schedule II, III & IV to the Act, 1970 is not entitled to practice. (VIII) Mere inclusion of name of a person in the State Register maintained under the State Act is not enough making him eligible to practice.
(IX) The right to practice under Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution is not absolute and thus subject to reasonable restrictions as provided under Article 19(6) of the Constitution.
(X) Restriction on practice without possessing the requisite qualification prescribed in Schedule II, III & IV to the Act, Page 7 of 9 1970 is not violative of Article 14 or ultra vires to any of the provisions of the State Act."
17. In the case of 'Manish Kumar v. State of U.P. 2010 (0) Supreme (All) 3452 = 2010 (9) A.D.J. 762 (Allahabad High Court), decided on 29.09.2010 by the Division Bench, the question considered by the Division Bench was 'The Prathama certificated issued by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad is equivalent to High School certificate issued by the Mandhymik Shiksha Parishad, U.P., Allahabad.‟ In the aforesaid case, the Allahabad High Court referred the „Rajasthan Pradesh‟ case (supra) and hold in para-18, as under: -
"18. So far as petitioner's reliance upon the judgment of this PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA Court in the case of Committee of Management (Supra) is concerned, suffice it to note that the aforesaid judgment was rendered in a situation where the learned Standing Counsel has not disputed the factum of the Government order dated 22.8.1998 (Annexure-8 in that writ petition) granting equivalence of Prathama certificate issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan to High School certificate issued by Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad. It is noticeable that the aforesaid Government order has been superseded later on by another Government order dated 28.10.1998, therefore, the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is of no help. The factum of supersession of Government order dated 22.8.1998 by Government order dated 28.10.1998 find mentioned in the latter decisions of this Court in the case of Sarojni Pandey v. State of U.P. and others, 2003 (7) UPLBEC 1129, where this Court has held that Prathama and Madhyama Examination is not equivalent to High School and Intermediate Education conducted by the Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad. It may also be noticed the same Hon'ble Judge who has decided the case of Committee of Management (supra) on which the petitioner has placed reliance has taken different view while deciding the case of Shailendra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2004(1) ESC 622 (All). The Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan and others v. Lata Arun, AIR 2002 SC 2642, has held that the educational certificate of Madhyama issued from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Allahabad had been deleted from the recognized qualification vide notification dated 28.6.1985, Recently the Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan Pradesh V.S. Sardarshahar and another v. Union of India and others, JT 2010 (6) SC 306, has held as under:"
18. In view of above, instant Original Application stands dismissed as not maintainable.Page 8 of 9
19. All MAs pending in this O.A. also stand disposed off.
20. No order as to costs.
(Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
Member (A.) Member (J.)
PM/-
PUNIT KUMAR
MISHRA
Page 9 of 9