Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. This O.A. has been filed by the applicant--an Extra Departmental Agent-aggrieved by the order contained in letter No. B-6/11-2/98 (Pt) dated 23.9.98 (A3) deleting his name from the list of eligible candidates and Memo No. B-6/11/1/99 dated 7.7.99 (A6) selecting fourth respondent as Postman overlooking him, both issued by the 1st respondent and letter No. 44-29/94-SB. I(Pt) dated 17.5.95 (A7) issued by the 3rd respondent.

2. Applicant stated in the O.A. that he was the seniormost EDA belonging to Other Backward Category (OBC) in Ernakulam Postal Division entitled to be promoted against OBC vacancy in the seniority quota of EDAs for promotion to the cadre of Postman. He submitted that he was working as Extra Departmental Letter Box Peon at Ernakulam College Post Office since 27.4.82 and had 16 years of service and claimed to have studied upto VIII standard. According to him EDAs had been provided with a promotional avenue to the cadre of Postman as per Indian Posts and Telegraphs (Postman/Mailguards/Head Mailguards) Recruitment Rules, 1989 published under A1 notification dated 6.7.89 and amended by A2 notification dated 30.1.95. He stated that he was a candidate for the departmental examination held by the 1st respondent on 26.4.98 for filling up the vacancies of Postman cadre for the year 1998. In the notification issued for this examination inviting applications from eligible candidates belonging to the departmental and EDA cadres, it was stipulated that EDAs who entered service after 25.4.87 should possess minimum educational qualification of matriculation. Applicant stated that according to letter dated 17.4.98 all the 6 vacancies were allotted to E.D. Agents' quota were earmarked for OBC category and subsequently vide letter dated 1.7.98 the vacancies were revised to 2 due to fall in anticipated vacancies due to raising of retirement age from 58 to 60. He further submitted that the result of the examination was announced on 6.7.98 in which one Sri Suresh Kammath an EDA belonging to unreserved category was promoted in the seniority quota and another EDA belonging to OBC in the merit quota. Applicant represented against the selection of Sri Suresh Kammath in the seniority quota overlooking applicant's claim based on the OBC quota was rejected by the 1 st respondent vide letter dated 23.9.98 (A3) stating that the applicant was underqualified and ineligible to be considered as a candidate for the post of Postman under the seniority quota of EDAs since he had not passed VIII standard as required under DGP's letter dated 17.5.97 (A7). Applicant submitted that aggrieved by A3 order and the promotion of the unreserved candidate in the seniority quota applicant filed O.A. 1498/98 before this Tribunal which was admitted. Applicant further stated that the 1st respondent held another departmental examination for recruitment of Postman for the vacancies of 1999 on 9.5.99 in which the applicant was also permitted to appear but, when the result was announced 2 EDAs who were junior to the applicant were selected in the seniority quota for OBC and hence he with the permission of this Tribunal withdrew O.A. 1498/98 with liberty to file a fresh O.A. and thus, this O.A. came to be filed. According to the applicant, respondents issued notification dated 1.2.99 calling applications from eligible candidates for the Postmen Examination to be held on 11.4.99 which was subsequently postponed and held on 9.5.99. Applicant stated that on 22.3.99 1st respondent published A4 list of candidates who had been permitted to appear in the said examination. He submitted that there were two parts in the list annexed to the letter-Annexure A-Part I containing the names of Group 'D' officials (departmental candidates) and Part II containing the names of the E.D. Agents. He claimed that the list was prepared in the order of seniority and in Part II of the list, his name appeared at Sl. No. 3 indicating that he was the seniormost EDA in the OBC category. Enclosing a true copy of letter dated 23.3.99 indicating category wise vacancy position of Postman to be selected in the Examination of 1999 as A5, the applicant submitted that out of the total vacancies allotted to outsiders 50% was earmarked for ED As to be filled on the basis of length of service from amongst EDAs who had put in 15 years of satisfactory service and have minimum educational qualification of 8th standard and of the 7 vacancies allotted to EDAs (outsiders) 3 were reserved for OBC and 4 were to OC. According to him 2 vacancies in the OBC quota and 2 vacancies in OC quota were to be filled up by EDAs on the basis length of service irrespective of their appearance in the examination. Referring to the result of the examination declared on 7.7.99 by A6, he stated that as none qualified in the departmental quota the same was added to the merit quota of EDAs and further that in the seniority quota 4 EDAs including the 4th respondent had been selected based on length of service out of which 2 belonged to OBC. He submitted that 9 EDAs had been selected on merit quota. Applicant stated that his name was not included either in the seniority and his name ought to have been included in the seniority quota or in the merit quota. Applicant claimed that as per A4 he was third in the seniority quota. He claimed that his name was not included in the seniority quota on the plea that he was underqualified as stated in A3 in terms of third respondent's letter A7 dated 17.5.95 which prescribed the minimum educational qualification of 8th standard for EDAs for consideration as Postman to be filled up on seniority. Applicant claimed that instructions of the third respondent being administrative in nature could not prevail over statutory Recruitment Rules which did not prescribe minimum educational qualification for EDAs to be promoted to the post of Postman based on the length of service as had been held by this Tribunal by its order A8 in O.A. No. 1454/97, a similar case and hence A7 was ultra vires and illegal and all orders based on the same are liable to be set aside. He submitted that the first respondent had issued orders for imparting pre-appointment training to the selected candidates as per A9 memorandum dated 9.7.99 and that the training would be over by 23.7.99 and all of them including 4th respondent would be given regular appointment as Postman which would result in irreparable loss and injury to the applicant. Therefore, he approached this Tribunal for the following remedies:

6. When the matter came up for consideration of extension of the interim order, the Counsel for the parties submitted that the O.A. may be heard finally as the pleadings were complete and made their submissions.

7. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. We have given careful consideration to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties as well as the pleadings of the parties and have also carefully gone through the documents on record.

8. The applicant is seeking the reliefs in this O.A. on the basis of the ratio of the order of this Tribunal in O.A. 1454/97. The first respondent resisted the claim of the applicant on the plea that the applicant did not possess the minimum educational qualification of 8th standard pass as prescribed in A7 and that the recruitment of Postman from EDAs is not a promotion but is treated as direct recruitment. She also submitted that as per Al and A2 Recruitment Rules, recruitment by promotion was applicable to only Group 'D' employees of the Department. She added that as filling up of Postman from EDAs was considered as recruitment from outsiders, the educational qualification prescribed in the Recruitment Rules for outsiders is clearly applicable to EDAs which was 'Matriculation' and the third respondent relaxed the said educational qualification to 8th standard for EDAs by A7. On a perusal of the order in O.A. 1454/97 it would appear that the said order was based on the submissions of the respondents in that O.A. In para 2 of the order in that O.A. it had been stated ".....but they contend as it has been decided to prescribe the 8th standard as the minimum educational qualification for promoting the seniormost E.D. Agent as Postman as per letter dated 17.5.95 of the Director General, Posts, the applicant who does not possess the minimum educational qualification has no right to be considered for appointment as Postman." This Tribunal held that administrative instructions dated 17.5.95 could not supplant the statutory Recruitment Rules and could only supplement or fill up a gap in the statutory rules. The Tribunal held that in the amendment to the rules prescribing a minimum educational qualification of 8th standard for promotion of EDAs was unjustified and allowed the O.A.

9. In the present O.A., the first respondent has contended that the recruitment of EDAs as Postman was not a promotion but direct recruitment and that EDAs have been given relaxation of educational qualifications and had not prescribed any new qualification. The 4th respondent is also pleading the same thing. As there is a change in the stand of the department it was felt necessary to call for the file of O.A. 1454/97. On a perusal of the pleadings in that O.A. it is found that in the reply statement the Department did not aver that the recruitment of EDAs as Postman was a promotion. It is also found that the letter dated 17.5.95 was not under challenge in that O.A. It is also noted that the issue as to whether recruitment of Postman from EDAs was a promotion or direct recruitment was not examined at all and the letter dated 17.5.1995 had also not been set aside or declared null and void. In the present O.A. one of the reliefs sought is for quashing A7 order dated 17.5.95 in addition to A3. Therefore, it is felt necessary to go into the question as to whether the quota meant for EDAs provided for in the Recruitment Rules for Postman is to be treated as promotion or direct recruitment.

10. For this purpose, we have examined the Department of Posts (Postman/Village Postman and Mail Guards) Recruitment Rules, 1989 as amended in 1995 (Recruitment Rules of Postman in short) in detail. The age limit for the EDAs is indicated in column 7 in the schedule attached to the Recruitment Rules A1. This column 7 prescribes the age limit for direct recruits. In column 9 of the same schedule states that the age and educational qualification prescribed for direct recruitment will not apply in the case of promotions. If the recruitment of EDAs as Postman is a promotion, non-applicability of age and educational qualification provided for direct recruitment to EDAs should have been indicated under this column 9. Further, in column 11 of the same Schedule laying down the "Method of Recruitment whether by direct recruitment or by promotion or by deputation/ transfer and percentage of the vacancies to be filled up by various methods," 50% has been specifically shown as by promotion. The other 50% has been shown as by EDAs. The above provisions under column 7, 9 and 11 give an indication that the intention in the Recruitment Rules for Postman was to consider the EDAs against direct recruitment only.