Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Sanjay Kumar Dubey vs Union Of India on 26 November, 2013
Reserved
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH,
JABALPUR
Original Application No.332 of 2012
Jabalpur, this Tuesday, the 26th day of November, 2013
Honble Mr. Justice Dhirendra Mishra, Judicial Member
Honble Mr. G.P.Singhal, Administrative Member
1. Sanjay Kumar Dubey, son of Shri Prabhudayal Dubey, Aged about 26 years, Resident of Post Barman, Narmadanagar, Tehsil Kareli, Distt-Narsinghpur (M.P.) 487330
2. Pankaj Pandey, son of Shri Santosh Pandey, Aged about 25 years, Resident of Bharat singh Chouraha, Jaiprakash Nagar Ward No.3 Itarsi, Distt-Hoshangabad (M.P.) 461111
3. Dhananjay Kumar Yuwane, son of Shri Dayaram Yuwane, Aged about 33 years, Resident of LIG 31, Shukla Nagar, Malviyaganj, Itarsi, Distt-Hoshangabad (M.P.) 461111 - Applicants
(By Advocate Shri B.M.Prasad)
V e r s u s
1. Union of India, through Secretary,
Indian Postal Department, Dak Bhawan,
Sansad Marg, New Delhi 110001
2. Superintendent, Railway Mail Service,
Division, T.T. Nagar, Bhopal 462003
3. Deputy Record Officer, Railway Mail Service,
M.P. Division, Itarsi, Distt-Hoshangabad - 461111 -Respondents
(By Advocate Shri A.P.Khare)
(Date of reserving the order: - 12.11.2013)
ORDER
By Dhirendra Mishra, JM.-
Grievance of the applicants is that in response to the Notification dated 19.08.2011 (Annexure A-1), they participated in the selection process for recruitment to the post of Gramin Dak Sevak Dak Vahak. They were selected and asked to furnish attestation form, fitness etc. The above formalities were duly completed by the applicants. However, vide impugned order dated 04.02.2012 (Annexure A-4) they were informed that as per directions of superior officers the recruitment process of Gramin Dak Sevak (for brevity GDS) had been stopped and they can take back their original testimonials from the office. The applicants have, therefore, prayed to quash aforesaid order dated 04.02.2012 (Annexure A-4) and to direct the respondents to issue appointment orders on the post of GDS in favour of the applicants.
2. From perusal of the reply filed by the respondents, as also the communication from the Chief Post Master General, M.P. Circle, Bhopal dated 6.11.2013, addressed to the Superintendent, RMS, M.P. Division, Bhopal, filed by the respondents during the course of hearing, which is taken on record, it appears that the recruitment process of GDS Mail Carrier in RMS MP Dn was stopped due to irregularities made by the SRO, RMS Itarsi in selection procedure as the selection was made on the basis of marks obtained by the candidates in VIII standard, whereas as per as per GDS Recruitment Rules though the minimum educational qualification for GDS Mail carrier is VIII standard, the preference had to be given to the persons with Matriculation. It also appears that the said recruitment process of GDS Mail Carrier in RMS, MP Division has been finally cancelled.
3. In the aforesaid communication dated 6.11.2013, the respondents have referred to the decision of Honble Supreme Court in the matters of Surinder Singh Vs. Union of India, (2007) 11 SCC 599, (Civil Appeal No.143 of 2001 decided on 30.03.2007), wherein the Honble Supreme Court has considered the similar issue. Relevant paragraphs of the said order read thus:
(13) We have perused the guidelines/norms/instructions dated 24-3-1993 formulated by the Government of India, Ministry of Communications, Department of Posts, on the subject of revision of educational qualifications prescribed for recruitment to various categories of ED Agents. Sub-clause (iv) of Clause 2 of those guidelines/norms/instructions prescribes that the minimum educational qualifications for ED Delivery Agents, ED Stamp Vendors and other categories of ED should be 8th standard. Preference may be given to the candidates with matriculation qualification. However, it is specified that no preference should be given for any qualification higher than matriculation. It appears from the record that the Directorate, Post Offices, vide another Circular No. 19-17/97-ED & Trg. dated 21-11-1997, has decided that the merit of candidates for selection to the post of EDDA should be on the basis of the marks obtained in preferential qualification (i.e. matriculation) if such candidates are available, otherwise on the basis of the essential qualification viz. 8th standard.
(14)...
(15) These guidelines/norms/instructions clearly stipulate that if the candidates, who have passed matriculation examination, are available for selection to the posts of EDDA, the selection should be made by the Selection Committee on the basis of the marks obtained by the candidates in preferential qualification (i.e. matriculation) and in the absence of matriculate candidates, the selection has to be made on the basis of essential qualification viz. 8th standard. It appears that CAT as well as the High Court, both have lost sight of the object and import of the guidelines/norms/instructions dated 21-7-1998 (sic 21-11-1997) laid down by a competent authority. CAT is not competent to lay down criteria for the selection and appointment to the post of EDDA. It is the prerogative and authority of the employer to lay down suitable service conditions to the respective posts.
(emphasis supplied by us) (16) In our view, in service jurisprudence the prescription of preferential qualification not only refers to numeric superiority but is essentially related to better mental capacity, ability and maturity to shoulder the responsibilities, which are entrusted to the candidates after their selection to a particular post. All the more, it is important for efficient and effective administration. The basic object of prescribing a minimum qualification is to put a cut-off level for a particular job in accordance with the minimum competency required for the performance of that job. The object of prescribing preferential qualification is to select the best amongst the better candidates who possess more competence than the others. Sub-clause (iv) of Clause 2 puts a limit with respect to preferential qualification by way of a clear stipulation that no preference should be given to the qualification above matriculation. Hence, the preferential qualification was considered to be more effective and efficient and also it was a clear assumption that a candidate possessing the same is best suited for the post in question.
4. The Government of India, Department of Posts vide their letter No.19-2/2001-ED & Trg. dated the 14th June,2007 {reproduced as sub-para (3) below Para 6 of Section-IV relating to Mode of Recruitment, of Swamys Compilation of Service Rules for Postal Gramin Dak Sevak, Twelfth Edition,2013}, has brought to the notice of all concerned the aforesaid findings of the Honble Supreme Court, and the respondents by relying upon the aforesaid decision of the Honble Supreme Court and the aforesaid letter dated 14.6.2007 have cancelled the impugned selection.
5. Thus, in view of the above stated factual situation and settled position of law, the impugned action of the respondents in cancelling recruitment process of GDS Mail Carrier in RMS, MP Division cannot be quashed and, therefore, the applicants are not entitled to any relief sought for in this Original Application.
6. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in this Original Application. The same deserves to be and is dismissed without any order as to costs.
(G.P.Singhal) (Dhirendra Mishra) Administrative Member Judicial Member rkv 4 Sub. Cancellation of Recruitment process of GDS OA No.332/2012 Page 4 of 4