Kerala High Court
Sreevidya L vs Union Of India on 12 March, 2021
Bench: Alexander Thomas, K. Babu
OP (CAT) 10/2021 1 / 10
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Present:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU
th st
For information purpose only
Friday,the 12 day of March 2021/21 Phalguna, 1942
OP (CAT) No.10/2021
(AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04-02-2021 IN OA NO.180/00400/2020 OF
THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH)
PETITIONER:
SREEVIDYA L,,AGED 47 YEARS
W/O.ANILKUMAR, POSTAL ASSISTANT, LAKSHADWEEP POSTAL DIVISION,
RESIDING AT KUMARANCHIRA HOUSE, PRAYAR SOUTH,
ALUMPEEDIKA P.O., KOLLAM DT-690 547
RESPONDENTS:
1. UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY,
(DEPARTMENT OF POSTS), DAK BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110 001
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POSTS,
DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, DAK BHAVAN, NEW DELHI 110 001
3. THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL,
KERALA CIRCLE, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033
4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES,
MAVELIKKARA POSTAL DIVISION, MAVELIKKARA -690 101
5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES,
LAKSHADWEEP POSTAL DIVISION, KAVARATTI-682 555, LAKSHADWEEP
6. ANITHA.S.,AGED 32 YEARS
W/O. RAJESH KUMAR, KAYAMKULAM HEAD POST OFFICE, KAYAMKULAM
SUB DIVISION, MAVELIKKARA DIVISION, RESIDING AT PUTHENVEEDU,
PERUNGOLA P.O., KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690 559
7. LEKHA .O.,AGED 32 YEARS
W/O. PRASANNAN, POSTMAN, KEERIKKAD P.O., MAVELIKKARA POSTAL
DIVISION, RESIDING AT PELLATHU, AYIKKAD-CHEPPAD P.O.,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690 507
OP (CAT) 10/2021 2 / 10
OP(CAT) praying inter alia that in the circumstances stated in
the affidavit filed along with the OP (CAT) the High Court be
pleased to stay the operation of Exhibit P1, provisionally and
For information purpose only
subject to the final outcome of the OP(CAT).
This petition again coming on for admission on 12-03-2021 upon
perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support of OP
(CAT) and upon hearing the arguments of M/S T.C.GOVINDASWAMY,
KALA T.GOPI, SREEKALA.T.N,NAMADEVA PRABHU.B, Advocates for the
petitioner and of Sri.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA, for R1 to R5,
M/S SAJITH KUMAR V., GODWIN JOSEPH, SANKAR INDUCHOODAN, VIVEK
A.V., APARNA CHANDRAN, Advocates for R6 & R7, the court passed
the following
ALEXANDER THOMAS & K.BABU, JJ.
============================
O.P(CAT) NO.10 of 2021
(arising out of order dated 4.2.2021 in
O.A.No.180/00400/2020
============================
For information purpose only
Dated this the 12th day of March, 2021
ORDER
The case was posted for judgment/orders would be rendered today. However, on the request made on behalf of the learned Central Government Counsel, we are not in a position to render final disposal of the matter today, on account of the inconvenience of the learned Central Government Counsel.
2. However, after hearing both sides, we are of the view that the interlocutory orders will have to be passed by this Court to ensure that the subject matter of the lis is adequately preserved, otherwise the respondents will take up the plea of fait accompli later.
3. In this case the original applicant was initially considered for selection to the post of Postal Assistant in the Mavelikkara postal division for the selection year 2017-2018 and going by its merit, she could not be appointed any of the regular vacancies for that year in the Mavelikkara division and was otherwise eligible to be considered for appointment to O.P(CAT) NO.10 of 2021 2 the surplus vacancies elsewhere more particularly in respect of the vacancies in Lakshadweep Union Territory.
4. Later, the petitioner had applied for selection for the very For information purpose only same post of Postal Assistant for the selection year 2019-2020 for which she was also invited to attend the skill test to be conducted on 9.2.2020 as per Annexure A8 dated 28.1.2020 issued in that regard (see page No.73 of the paper book of the O.P). Thereafter, some of the rival candidates had approached the Tribunal and they obtained the stay of the conduct of the said skill test as per Annexure A9 interim order dated 7.2.2020 issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench in O.A.No.180/762/2019. The official respondents herein themselves had approached this Court by filing O.P(CAT) No.81/2020 before the Division Bench of this Court, so as to challenge the above said interim order dated 7.2.2020 granted by the Tribunal (as per Annexure A9 herein). The Division Bench of this Court had rendered Annexure A10 judgment dated 24.6.2020 in the said Original Petition, whereby the interim order dated 7.2.2020 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench in O.A.No.180/762/2019 as per Annexure A9 was vacated and set aside. This paved the way of conduct of the skill test and as a matter of fact, O.P(CAT) NO.10 of 2021 3 the official respondents had issued Anneuxure A13 intimation dated 17.8.2020 to the petitioner herein instructing her to appear in the skill test to be subsequently held on 23.8.2020. Thereafter, by Annexure For information purpose only A14 dated 23.8.2020, hall ticket was issued to the petitioner to appear for the said skill test. In the meanwhile, the respondents have also issued the impugned Annexure A1 order dated 21.8.2020, ordering that the candidature of the petitioner for selection to the post of Postal Assistant for the selection year 2019-2020 stands cancelled as she was already appointed as Postal Assistant in the surplus vacancies of Lakshadweep for the previous selection year in question. It appears that in view of the interdiction made by the Tribunal, as per Annexure A9 dated 7.2.2020, the skill test as per Annexure A8 dated 28.1.2020 could not be conducted. In the meanwhile, the official respondents had considered appointment to the surplus vacancies for the selection year 2017-2018 and had offered appointment to the petitioner for the said surplus vacancies in Lakshadweep, pursuant to which the petitioner had secured as per Annexure A11 dated 17.3.2020. It is the case of the petitioner that if the skill test had been originally conducted as per Annexure A8 dated 28.1.2020 on 9.2.2020 then the result thereon would have been published immediately thereafter and if the O.P(CAT) NO.10 of 2021 4 petitioner was successful in the skill test, then she would have been offered selection and appointment for the selection year 2019-2020 immediately thereafter and that in such a case, the petitioner would For information purpose only have certainly opted not to accept the offer of appointment subsequently issued by the official respondents as per Annexure A11 dated 17.3.2020.
5. Sri.T.C.Govindaswamy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the official respondents are obliged to consider the case of all eligible candidates including the petitioner for such appointment strictly in accordance with the Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and since it has been found by this Court that the Annexure A9 interim order dated 7.2.2020 issued by the Tribunal was unwarranted, the period between Annexure A9 dated 7.2.2020 and Annexure A10 judgment rendered by this Court on 24.6.2020 should have been excluded for the purpose of determining whether the petitioner's candidature should have been considered for the regular vacancies for the selection year 2019-2020. It is pointed out that if the said period is excluded, then it can be seen that the petitioner has been rightly offered to appear in the skill test as per Annexure A13 issued by none other than the official respondents and O.P(CAT) NO.10 of 2021 5 that too voluntarily on 17.8.2020. Pursuant to which the hall ticket was also issued as per Annexure A14 dated 23.8.2020 to enable the petitioner to appear in the skill test on 23.8.2020. It is thus urged that For information purpose only the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner as per Annexure A1 impugned order dated 21.8.2020 and without even permitting her to participate in the selection process is highly illegal, arbitrary and would also be initiated by partial discrimination. In as much as the other incumbents would have been considered for the selection, whereas even the opportunity to be considered for the said selection has been denied to the petitioner.
6. Further it is pointed out that, all throughout during the pendency of Ext.P1 O.A No.180/00400/202,0 the Tribunal had granted interim order directing that one vacancy in the post of Postal Assistant in Mavelikkara postal division under the 4 th respondent should be kept unfilled etc.
7. Per contra, the learned Central Government Counsel would argue that the petitioner has already secured the post of Postal Assistant in the Lakshadweep division, as per Annexure A11 dated 17.3.2020 and that therefore the contentions of the petitioner are untenable. Similar contention has also been raised by Sri.Sajith O.P(CAT) NO.10 of 2021 6 Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 6 and 7.
8. After hearing both sides, we are of the firm view that the petitioner had made out a strong prima facie case in the matter. The For information purpose only Tribunal had granted interim order as stated above, which was in force all through out the pendency of the Original Application. Now if the vacancy is filled up in the meanwhile, then later the respondents will take up the plea that not even a vacancy is available to consider the case of the petitioner even if otherwise she is successful in this case. Hence the balance of convenience is also tipped heavily in favour of the petitioner. For this reason, it is ordered that the operation and enforcement of impugned Ext.P1 order dated 4.2.2021 rendered by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench in O.A. No.400/2020 as well as that of Annexure A1 rejection order dated 21.8.2020 issued by the 4th respondent shall be kept in abeyance. It is further ordered that one vacancy of Postal Assistant in the 4 th respondent Mavelikkara Postal Division shall be kept unfilled until further orders.
9. The learned Central Government Counsel should get specific factual instructions from the competent authority of the respondents more particularly from the 4 th respondent as to when the O.P(CAT) NO.10 of 2021 7 result pursuant to the skill test conducted on 28.3.2020 as per Annures A13 and A14 was declared and when the selection thereof was finalised in respect of other candidates, including that of respondents 6 and 7.
For information
Post the purpose
case on 19.3.2021 at 10.15 only
am for judgment/orders.
Handover.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS
Judge
Sd/-
K.BABU
Judge
ab
/true copy/ Sd/- ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
KLHC010118892021 10 / 10
EXHIBIT P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OA NO.180/00400/2020 DATED 04.02.2021, RENDERED BY THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ,ERNAKULAM BENCH ANNEXURE-A1 - TRUE COPY OF ORDER BEARING NO. B2/40/3/EXAM 2019/DATED 21.08.2020 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT For information purpose only ANNEXURE-A8 - TRUE COPY OF ORDER BEING NO.RECTT/10-3/2019 DATED 28.01.2020 CONTAINING THE RELEVANT PAGES RELATING TO MAVELIKKARA POSTAL DIVISION ANNEXURE-A9 - TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER IN OA NO.180/762/2019 DATED 07.02.2020 RENDERED BY THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL ANNEXURE-A10 - TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP(CAT) 81/2020 DATED 24.06.2020 RENDERED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA ANNEXURE-A11 - TRUE COPY OF MEMO NO.PF/LS/20-21 DATED 17.03.2020 ISSUED BY THE FIFTH RESPONDENT ANNEXURE-A13 - TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION BEARING NO.B2/40/3/EXAM 2019/II DATED 17.08.2020 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT ANNEXURE-A14 - TRUE COPY OF THE HALL TICKET ISSUED TO THE APPLICANT FOR APPEARING FOR THE DATA ENTRY SKILL TEST (DEST) ON 23.08.2020