Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
Daroga Singh Meena vs D/O Post on 29 September, 2021
1
OA No. 291/727/2013
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 291/727/2013
Order reserved on 16.09.2021
DATE OF ORDER: 29.09.2021
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. DINESH SHARMA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
HON'BLE MRS. HINA P. SHAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Daroga Singh Meena son of Shri Budha Ram Meena,
aged about 44 years, resident of Durga Colony, Near
Radha Behari Mandir, Dholpur and presently holding
post of Postal Assistant and working as Inspector of
Posts, Dholpur Sub Division, Dholpur.
....Applicant
Shri C.B. Sharma, counsel for applicant.
VERSUS
1. Union of India through Secretary to the
Government of India, Department of Posts, Ministry
of Communication & Information Technology, Dak
Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001.
2. Chief Post Master General, Rajasthan Circle, Jaipur-
302007.
.... Respondents
Shri N.C. Goyal, counsel for respondents.
ORDER
Per: Hina P. Shah, Judicial Member The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for the following reliefs:- 2
OA No. 291/727/2013 "(i) That the respondents may be directed to fill-
up the backlog vacancies of the post of Inspector of Posts of ST category and also review the result of the applicant and by allowing relaxation, applicant be promoted / appointed to the Inspector of Posts against the vacancies of ST category by quashing memo dated 21/08/2013 (Annexure-A/1) with all consequential benefits.
(ii) That the respondents may be further directed to act as per rules of special relaxation for reserve category and to fill up backlog vacancies and to give similar treatment to the applicant, as given to his coworkers.
(iii) Any other order / directions of relief may be granted in favour of the applicant, which may be deemed just and proper under the facts and circumstances of this case.
(iv) That the costs of this application may be awarded."
2. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the applicant, are that he was appointed as Postal Assistant in the year 1993 and presently working as Inspector of Post Offices. On completion of 10 years of service, he was given benefits under MACP Scheme from 01.09.2008. He belongs to ST category. In the year 1999, there were two vacancies for the post of Inspector of Post Offices against ST, one vacancy for SC and three vacancies for unreserved. Towards the IPO examination for the year 1999, only one candidate, Miss. Mohini Gupta, qualified belonging to unreserved category and she was promoted as IPO 3 OA No. 291/727/2013 and vacancy for ST category remained unfilled. As per request of the applicant, he was made available with the marks obtained by him. As per DOPT OM dated 11.07.2002, the reserved category candidates could be adjusted against unreserved vacancies on passing the selection as per their own merit. As per letter dated 30.11.1992, (Annexure A/7), respondents made provisions to failed candidates providing grace marks without any limit and as per vacancy position. Though respondents reviewed the cases for relaxation but case of any ST candidate including the applicant was never considered though the applicant was eligible. As per DOPT OM dated 19.11.2008, there was a special recruitment drive for filling up backlog reserved vacancies for SCs, STs & OBCs existing as on 01.07.2004 and, accordingly, information was called from various departments. The applicant is constantly pursuing the matter with the respondents since 2000 and after 2008, one SC category candidate was appointed on the post of Inspector of Post Offices after review of his result. Though, the applicant again made request to the respondents on 30.06.2011 for certain information, vide letter dated 20.07.2011, respondents informed about the record being weeded out. As his request was not considered, he approached this 4 OA No. 291/727/2013 Tribunal by way of filing OA No. 672/2012, wherein vide order dated 25.09.2012, directions were given to the respondents to dispose of his representation. The respondent No. 2 rejected the claim of the applicant vide memo dated 21.08.2013 on the ground that relevant record has been weeded out and further stated that provisions of OM dated 03.10.2000 are not applicable in his case. Thus, being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has filed the present Original Application as the order passed by the respondents is illegal and arbitrary.
3. (a) Respondents after issue of notices filed their reply raising objection of limitation stating that the claim of the applicant is belated. It was further stated that the period of limitation for filing an O.A. under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is to be counted from the original date of cause of action and mere filing a representation does not extend the period of limitation and relied upon the case of Bhoop Singh vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in JT 1992 (3) S.C. 322. The respondents also relied on several judgments on limitation on stale and dead issue and orders passed in compliance of directions by Courts/Tribunals, the date of such a decision cannot be 5 OA No. 291/727/2013 considered as a fresh cause of action for reviving 'dead' issue or time barred issue. Thus, the present case suffers from delay and laches and deserves to be dismissed on the ground of limitation.
(b) On merits, respondents stated that the applicant being an ST category candidate appeared in Inspector of Post Offices (IPO) Examination 1999, along with 10 other candidates of ST category against vacancies of OC-3, SC-1 and ST-2. In the said examination, only one candidate of OC was declared successful. Thereafter, the applicant submitted a representation dated 22.05.2012 after lapse of more than 12 years and in compliance of the directions of this Bench of the Tribunal dated 25.09.2012 in OA No. 672/2012, the said representation was decided by a reasoned and speaking order dated 21.08.2013, (Annexure A/1). Respondents further state that the applicant has filed the present Original Application in the garb of order dated 21.08.2013 and has prayed to review his result of the examination held in the year 1999. Respondents also state that under RTI Act, 2005, the applicant vide his application dated 30.06.2011 had applied for his marks obtained in the examination of IPO 1999, held in 2000 and the same was replied to him vide letter dated 26.09.2011, that information 6 OA No. 291/727/2013 cannot be furnished as the record has been weeded out. Instead of waiting for the decision on the representation, the applicant approached this Tribunal by way of filing OA No. 672/2012 and in compliance of the orders of this Tribunal, order dated 21.08.2013, Annexure A/1, is passed on the representation of the applicant dated 22.05.2012.
(c) Respondents further state that the contention of the applicant that one Shri Hanuman Lal Bairwa, SC candidate, was declared successful after High Power Committee considered and recommended the case of Shri Bairwa against one vacancy of 2001 against the SC category and the said review result was declared on 10.10.2007. It is to further state that Shri Bairwa had appeared in IPOs Exam-2001, whereas the applicant had appeared in IPOs Exam-1999. As far as the rules and regulations applicable to the present case are concerned, the DOPT vide OM dated 22.07.1997, various instructions of the Government providing for lower qualifying marks/lesser standards of evaluation in matters of promotion for candidates belonging to SC/ST had been withdrawn on the basis of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of S. Vinod Kumar and Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in [JT 1996 (8) S.C. 643]. As far as 7 OA No. 291/727/2013 DOPT OM dated 3.10.2000 is concerned, para 4 of the said OM clearly stipulates that these orders shall take effect in respect of selections to be made on or after the date of the issue of this OM and selections finalized earlier shall not be disturbed. Thus, in view of the discussions made above, the applicant who appeared in the IPO Exam-1999 does not come under the ambit to re-open the finalized issues between the periods of OM dated 22.07.1997 and 03.10.2000. With regard to preservation of records of Tabulated Register/Marks Sheet is 10 years from the date of declaration of result as per Rule 17 (A) of Appendix 37 of Postal Manual, Volume IV and the same has been reviewed and revised/amended as 3 years vide letter dated 21.12.2011 and all the relevant records have been weeded out as per the provisions of the rules. Therefore, the Original Application filed by the applicant being devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed.
4. We have heard learned counsels for the parties at length and examined the pleadings brought on record.
5. The applicant besides reiterating his submissions further added that respondents have not followed the rules of reservation and have filled the reserved points 8 OA No. 291/727/2013 by promoting the persons who belong to the general category as well as persons belonging to SC/ST reserve category those who have passed the selection as per their own merit and also against the unreserved vacancies. This has created a backlog in respect of reserved categories but the same remain unfilled though there are instructions issued from time to time by nodal departments but no heed is being paid to them. Though the applicant had filed representation in 2008, but the same was not replied. The OM dated 03.10.2000 is applicable to his case as the examination was conducted in January 2000 and the result of the same was declared in December 2000 and thus, the applicant is fully eligible for review of result. Therefore, the applicant states that as the action of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, the Memo dated 21.08.2013, (Annexure A/1), is liable to be quashed and set aside and his result be reviewed and he should be promoted as IPO against the vacancy of ST category.
6. The respondents reiterated their stand and stated that their action was in consonance with the rules. They further stated that they have never violated any statutory provisions on the subject nor the directions 9 OA No. 291/727/2013 nor the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in not reviewing the result of the applicant. Further the Chief Post Master General, Rajasthan Circle, Jaipur is the competent to decide the representation of the applicant. Shri H.L. Bairwa, who belongs to SC category had appeared in IPOs Examination-2001 held on 19 to 21 March 2002 and on receipt of the marks from the Directorate in respect of failed candidates of SC/ST category, a High Power Committee considered and recommended the name of Shri Bairwa against one vacancy of 2001 against SC category and finally review result was declared on 10.10.2007 by the Directorate under the provisions of rules exists at the time of examination held. Therefore, the plea of discrimination of the applicant cannot be accepted as rules applicable to applicant as well as Shri Bairwa are different. Thus, the applicant does not deserve any relief and the present Original Application deserves to be rejected.
7. After hearing the parties and perusing the pleadings, before coming to the facts of the case, we would like to deal with the plea of limitation raised by the respondents. In the present case, the applicant appeared in IPOs Exam-1999 for which the results 10 OA No. 291/727/2013 were already declared in the year 2000. The applicant for the first time made a representation dated 22.05.2012 after a lapse of around 12 years from the said exam/result. Without waiting for the outcome of the decision on the said representation, the applicant filed O.A. No. 672/2012 before this Bench of the Tribunal, wherein this Tribunal vide its order dated 25.09.2012 without going into merits of the case, directed the respondents to consider the representation of the applicant dated 22.05.2012 and if the case of the similarly situated persons are going to be considered by way of review, in such eventuality, the respondents may also consider the said representation of the applicant on its own merit and may pass orders in this regard. As seen, the applicant appeared in IPOs Exam-1999, but representation was filed on 22.05.2012. Orders passed by the respondents dated 21.08.2013, in compliance to the directions of this Tribunal, on the said representation does not give a fresh cause of action to come within the period of limitation. As the actual cause of action arose way back in the year 2000 when the results of IPOs Exam- 1999 were declared and the applicant was not found successful in the said examination, therefore, as observed by several judgments of the Hon'ble Apex 11 OA No. 291/727/2013 Court, including that of Union of India & Ors. vs. M.K. Sarkar, reported in JT 2009 (15) SC 70, relevant para 9.1 of the judgment are as under:-
"9.1 When a belated representation in regard to a `stale' or `dead' issue/dispute is considered and decided, in compliance with a direction by the Court/Tribunal to do so, the date of such decision can not be considered as furnishing a fresh cause of action for reviving the `dead' issue or time-barred dispute. The issue of limitation or delay and laches should be considered with reference to the original cause of action and not with reference to the date on which an order is passed in compliance with a court's direction. Neither a court's direction to consider a representation issued without examining the merits, nor a decision given in compliance with such direction, will extend the limitation, or erase the delay and laches. A Court or Tribunal, before directing `consideration' of a claim or representation should examine whether the claim or representation is with reference to a `live' issue or whether it is with reference to a `dead' or `stale' issue. If it is with reference to a `dead' or `state' issue or dispute, the court/Tribunal should put an end to the matter and should not direct consideration or reconsideration. If the court or Tribunal deciding to direct 'consideration' without itself examining of the merits, it should make it clear that such consideration will be without prejudice to any contention relating to limitation or delay and laches. Even if the court does not expressly say so, that would be the legal position and effect."
Thus, the period of limitation of filing an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is to be counted from the original date of cause of action and, therefore, the orders passed on representation do not extend the period of limitation. Hence, the present Original Application deserves to be dismissed on this ground itself. 12 OA No. 291/727/2013
8. On merits, we have seen that the applicant has appeared in IPOs Examination-1999 under the ST category, which was conducted from 11 to 13 January, 2000. He did not qualify the said exam. The rules applicable at the said time was DOPT OM No. 36012/23/96-Estt.(Res) dated 22 July 1997, which clearly provided that the various instructions of the Government providing for lower qualifying marks/lesser standards of evaluation in matters of promotion for candidates belonging to the SC/ST had been withdrawn, on the basis of the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in the case of S. Vinod Kumar & Anr. vs. Union of India and Ors., reported in JT 1996 (8) SC 643). As far as DOPT OM No. 36012/23/96-Estt.(Res.) Vol. II dated 03.10.2000 is concerned, the same is not applicable in the case of the applicant as para 4 of the said OM clearly states that "these orders shall take effect in respect of selections to be made on or after the date of issue of this OM and selections finalized earlier shall not be disturbed."
9. We have also observed that the applicant after a lapse of more than 10 years from the date of declaration of result of IPOs Examination, 1999, has 13 OA No. 291/727/2013 applied under the RTI Act, 2005 vide his application dated 30.06.2011 to provide marks obtained by him as well as about other successful and unsuccessful candidates of ST category who appeared in the IPOs Exam-1999. The Postal Directorate vide letter No. A- 34021/131-RTI/2011-DE dated 26.09.2011 informed that the information cannot be furnished as records are weeded out. It is seen that the period of preservation of Tabulated Register/Marks sheet was 10 years from the date of declaration of result and as per Rule 17 (a) of Appendix 37 of Postal Manual, Volume IV, and the same has been reviewed and revised/amended as 3 years vide letter No. A- 34020/22/2011-DE dated 21.12.2011, which reads as under:-
"Tabulated results sheets or mark sheet registers of departmental examinations should be preserved for a period of three years from the date of announcement of respective results."
Thus, it is clear that the relevant records have been weeded out as per rules.
10. We have also noted that the applicant has appeared in IPOs Examination-1999 and the person, Shri H.L. Bairwa against whom he has stated that his case / result was reviewed cannot be compared as Shri 14 OA No. 291/727/2013 Bairwa appeared for the IPOs Examination-2001 and he was covered by DOPT OM dated 03.10.2000 and the same was clear that the selections finalized earlier shall not be disturbed and, on the other hand, the applicant was governed by DOPT OM dated 22.07.1997, vide which various instructions of the Government providing for lower qualifying marks/lesser standards of evaluation in matters of promotion for candidates belonging to the SC/ST had been withdrawn, on the basis of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of S. Vinod Kumar (supra). Therefore, there is also no question of any discrimination carried out in the case of applicant vis- a-vis Shri H.L. Bairwa as both cases were different. Thus, even on merits, the applicant has made out no case in his favour and none of the grounds raised by him are convincing as the same are not sustainable. Therefore, it is clear that the action of the respondents is proper, just and legal and the impugned order deserves no interference.
11. In the light of the observations made herein- above, we, therefore, have no hesitation to observe that the present Original Application deserves to be dismissed on limitation as well as on merits. In view 15 OA No. 291/727/2013 of what we have discussed above, the impugned order dated 21.08.2013, Annexure A/1, deserves no interference as the same is just and proper. Accordingly, the Original Application is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(HINA P. SHAH) (DINESH SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER /nlk/