Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Smt. Rajeshwari Saxena vs The Union Of India Through Its Secretary on 27 January, 2011
(RESERVED) CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH ALLAHABAD Dated this , the 27th day of January, 2011. HONBLE MR. S. N. SHUKLA, MEMBER- A. HONBLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER- J. ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 1054 OF 2005 Smt. Rajeshwari Saxena, w/o Late Sri Raj Kumar Saxena, resident of village Sauj (Kurra), District- Mainpuri. .Applicant [By Advocate S.K. Srivastava & Advocate A. Malviya] V E R S U S 1. The Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Communication, Department of Post and Telegraph, New Delhi. 2. Chief Post Master General, U.P. Division, Lucknow. 3. Superintendent of Post Office, Mainpuri Division, Mainpuri. ..Respondents [By Advocate Sri A. Tripathi] O R D E R
PER MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J) The applicant has approached this Tribunal under section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 with a prayer to direct the respondents not to revert the applicant from the post of Branch Post Master to the G.D.S in pursuance of letter dated 21.04.2005. Further prayer has also been made for a direction to the respondents to allow the applicant to work as Branch Post Master as she fulfils the qualification prescribed for the said post.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the husband of the applicant late Raj Kumar Saxena was working as Branch Post Master (B.P.M in short) , who died on 20.10.1998 while he was in service. On his death, the request of the applicant for appointment on compassionate grounds was accepted by the competent authority and an order on 10.06.2002 offering appointment to the applicant as G.D.S on temporary basis by relaxing rules with the condition that she has to submit certificate of passing High School within a period of two years from the date of appointment. Appointment order was issued on 12.09.2002.
3. On 06.02.2004, respondent No. 3 issued a letter to the applicant requiring the applicant to submit Certificate of Prathma examination for verification as she had submitted mark-sheet of Prathma, claiming it to be equal to the High School. Certificate of Prathma was duly submitted on 28.02.2004. Thereafter, the competent authority after verification of the certificate submitted by the applicant from U.P. Education Board, Allahabad found that the certificate of Prathma issued by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad is not equivalent to the High School. On the basis of above, a letter issued by the respondent No. 3 on 17.06.2004 informed the applicant that since she has not passed High School, the basic qualification, as stipulated in the order dated 10.06.2002 and that Prathma from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad is not equivalent to High School. Therefore, she cannot continue as BPO and her consent was sought for appointment as GDS, as the qualification for the same is Middle and that she fulfilled the said qualification. In response the applicant submitted a representation on 31.08.2004 reiterating that Prathma is equivalent to High School and she may be allowed to continue on her post. She further submitted that the candidature of her son Shri Amit Ranjan be considered for the post in question.
4. Vide an order dated 21.04.2005 the services of the applicant was to be terminated as BPM. It is against this order the applicant has filed the instant Original Application for seeking direction from this Tribunal to the respondents to consider the qualification of Prathma from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad equivalent to the High School and the applicant be permitted to continue on the post of B.P.M.
5. In the C.A it has been stated by the respondents that the very appointment of the applicant is temporary and conditional with a rider that she was to acquire a qualification High School within a period of 2 years from the date of appointment i.e. 10.06.2002. The certificate of Prathma from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad submitted by the applicant was got verified from U.P. Education Board, Allahabad. The report from Board clarified that Prathma is not equivalent to High School. Accordingly her services were terminated. However, keeping in view the indigent condition and hardship of the applicant she was offered appointment to the post of G.D.S, for which she was eligible.
6. Heard Sri Y.K. Srivastava, counsel for the applicant and Sri A. Tripathi for the respondents and perused the pleadings on record.
7. The main issue for consideration before this Tribunal is whether Prathama from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad is equivalent to High School/Matriculation Learned counsel for the applicant pointed out to Notification issued by the Government of India, M/o Human Resource Development (Department of Secondary & Higher Education) dated 26.07.2001 (Annexure A-7 of O.A) by which the Government has decided to recognize the Prathama Examination being conducted by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad for the purpose of employment under the Central Government for the post for which the desired qualification is a pass in Matriculation. The Notification is also reproduced herein under: -
No. F.24-4/2001-TSIII On the recommendation of High level committee for recognition of Educational Qualification, the Government of India have decided to recognize the Prathama Examination being conducted by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad for the purpose of employment under the Central Government for the post for which the desired qualification is a pass in matriculation. The recognition is provisional for a period of 3 years after which the certificate will review the recognition granted.
8. Counsel for the applicant argued that in view of the said notification issued by the Government of India, Prathama is equivalent to Matriculation, therefore, the action of the respondents in treating the advise of U.P. Education Board in this regard is totally illegal, arbitrary and against the spirit of Notification, which mandates that for the purpose of employment under the Central Government, the above notification is to be enforced. It is further pointed out that above stated notification (Supra) was extended vide Notification dated 14.05.2004 and made applicable upto 27.07.2007. He further drew attention of this Tribunal to the letter dated 11.10.2006 written by Sri R.C. Sharma, Assistant D.G (GDS) to Post Master General, Agra Region, Agra wherein, it is clarified that Prathama examination conducted by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad is equal to matric level.. The contents of the said letter is also reproduced herein under: -
I am directed to refer to your letter No. STA/48-55/2005 dated 13.9.2006 on the above mentioned subject and to state that Prathama Exam conducted by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad is equivalent to matriculation level. This was clarified vide letter No. F-31-1/2003-TS III (Vol II) dated 23.3.2006 by Ministry of HRD, Department of Secondary Education and Higher Education, you are requested to take action accordingly.
9. Admittedly the post in question is under the Postal department, therefore, the instructions issued by the Government of India are applicable, as stipulated in Notification dated 26.07.2001. Under the circumstances there was no occasion for the respondents to seek clarification from the State Government in this regard. On the date of acquiring the qualification the notification was in force as the same was extended vide Notification dated 14.05.2004 till 27.07.2007. Therefore, the case of the applicant is covered by the above stated Notification and the Prathama is equivalent to High School at the relevant time.
10. On the basis of the Notification coupled with the letter dated 11.6.2006, issued by the Govt. of India, once the Prathma has been equated with the High School / Matriculation by the Govt. of India, the Applicant fulfills the conditions stipulated in letter dated 10th of June 2002, the subsequent orders based on above stated order is totally illegal without jurisdiction and is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is liable to be set aside.
11. In view of the foregoing, though the termination order has not been appended either with the Original Application or with the Counter Affidavit on behalf of the respondents, but the averments has been made in Para J of the Counter Affidavit indicating that services of the applicant has been terminated vide Memo No. A. 191 dated 5.6.2005 as per the terms and conditions contained in the letter dated 10.8.2002. She has already been relieved from service on 8.6.2005. Therefore, there is no hesitation to set aside the orders passed in continuation of letter dated 10.6.2002. The Respondents are directed to reinstate the Applicant on the post of GDS BPM Sauj forthwith. Needless to say that the intervening period will be treated as though the services of the applicant were never terminated.
11. O.A. stands allowed. There will be no order as to costs.
MEMBER- J MEMBER- A
Sj*/Anand
??
??
??
??
6