Satyendra Singh Khanagar vs Union Of India & Ors.

By Mallika Arya, AM

Through this Original Application, the applicant is seeking quashment of impugned termination order dated 25.05.2015 (Annexure A/4). He is seeking further directions to the respondents to reinstate him in service with all consequential benefits.

Briefly stating, the facts of the case are that the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur issued a notification dated 04.12.2013 for appointment to the post of GDS BPM. Being eligible under the SC category, the applicant submitted an application for appointment to the said post along with required documents. After going through the selection process, he got selected. The Senior Superintendent of Post offices, Jabalpur vide letter dated 11.08.2014 (Annexure A/1) issued an offer of appointment to the applicant. The applicant submitted his willingness and submitted other documents required for appointment. Thereafter, the applicant was sent on four days practical training vide order dated 24.11.2014 (Annexure A/2). On successful completion of training, the applicant was handed over charge of BPM, Imlai BO, on 05.12.2014 (Annexure A/3). Thereafter, the services of the applicant were terminated vide SSPOs Jabalpur memo No.SSP/CONFD/2015 dated 25.05.2015 (Annexure A/4) without issuing any show cause notice and without granting any opportunity of hearing, in violation to the Principles of natural justice. The applicant demanded information under RTI Act, 2005 as to why his services have been terminated. In response to the RTI application, the CPIO and SSPOs, Jabalpur vide letter dated 08.07.2015, provided a copy of letter dated 18.05.2015 (Annexure A/5). The letter dated 18.05.2015 reveals that on two accounts, the appointment of the applicant has been cancelled. Firstly, Shri Rajesh Chandravanshi, who was at serial no. 2 in merit list, was not issued an offer of appointment for Imalai BO. Secondly candidates at no. 3 & 4 were having equal marks. However, priority was not given to the older candidate in age. In Central Administrative Tribunal^{last para of letter dated 18.05.2015 (Annexure A/5), the SSPOs Jabalpur} has been directed to cancel the appointment of the applicant and issue fresh appointment letters according to merit. As per applicant’s information, the candidates at serial no. 1 & 2 in the merit list, were issued offers of appointment but they did not turn up for joining. Shri Atul Singh Jharia who had got equal marks to the applicant is already working as GDS BPM, Indrana BO and is not interested to come at Imalai. A copy of merit list of Imalai BO and list of selected candidates in SC quota is filed as Annexure A/6 and A/7 respectively. As per letter dated 18.05.2014, the candidates at serial no. 1 & 2 in the merit list might have been issued fresh offer letters. In such a position the applicant being highest marks holder amongst remaining candidates in the merit list has a right to get appointment. The applicant made oral requests to the respondent no.3 several times to reinstate him in service. He made representation dated 28.08.2015 (Annexure A/8) before the respondent no.3. He was assured that if after issuing fresh offer letters to the candidates at serial no. 1 & 2 in merit list, and if they do not turn up, he will be given an appointment. However, he has got no relief till the date. The action of the respondents in terminating services of the applicant is illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice.

The respondents have filed their reply wherein it has been submitted that in pursuance of CMG, M.P. Circle, Bhopal letter dated 22.02.2011, a notification was issued for 101 vacant posts of GDS BPMs in Jabalpur Postal Division. The vacancies were declared by Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices Jabalpur on 04.12.2013 and 05.12.2013 with following breakup:

In pursuance to notification of imalai BO (Panager SO) issued on 05.12.2013 under SC category, the applicant was selected and given offer of appointment dated 11.08.2014 (Annexure R/1) for the Post of GDS BPM, Imlai BO (Panager SO) as per terms and conditions enumerated in appointment letter. While the process of engagement of GDS BPM in Jabalpur Postal Division was going on, some discrepancies were noticed in the gradation list and roster points of GDS BPM. During the enquiry, it came to notice that the candidate No. 3 (present applicant) and No. 4 in selection sheet had the same percentage in high school marksheet. However, offer letter was issued to the candidate No. 3 who was younger in age vis-a-vis candidate No. 4 Central Administrative Tribunal^{because the age criteria was overlooked by the competent authority.} Merit list of the selection sheet has been filed with OA as Annexure A/6 and A/7. Therefore the services of applicant were terminated vide termination order dated 25.05.2015 (Annexure A/4) in line with the conditions as per officer of appointment as well as the provisions contained under Rule 8 of GDS (conduct and engagement) rule 2011 (Annexure R/2). He was allowed a sum equivalent to the amount of TRCA plus dearness allowance as admissible during the notice period i.e. one month on the rate which he was drawing at the time of termination of his services (Annexure R/3 and Annexure R/4).

We have considered the matter, heard the counsels and perused the pleadings and documents annexed with the Original Application.

The respondents in their reply have submitted that when the process of engagement of GDS BPM in Jabalpur Postal Division was going on, there were some discrepancies in the gradation list and roster points of GDS BPM. Therefore, all the personal file/folders of GDS BPM under engagement were sent to regional office Indore for inquiry. During the course of inquiry, it was noticed that in Imalai BO of Jabalpur postal division, candidate at Sl. No. 3 (present applicant) and Sl. No. 4 in selection sheet had the same percentage in high school marks. An offer letter of appointment was issued to the candidate at Sl. No. 3 (Applicant) who was younger in age vis-à-vis the candidate at Sl. No.4, due to rush of work. The criteria of age was completely overlooked by the competent authority. The merit in the selection sheet has been filed as Annexure A/6 and A/7.

So as to avoid discrepancies in future, competent authority decided to terminate the appointment of the applicant. The candidate having same percentage of marks in High School but older in age should have been placed higher in the merit list. Therefore, the respondents have gone ahead and cancelled the appointment by issuing termination order dated 25.05.2015 (Annexure A/4) under Rule 8 of GDS (Conduct & Engagement) Rules 2011.

Rule 8 of GDS (Conduct & Engagement) Rules 2011 reads as follows:

Hence, Rule 8(1) of the above rules clearly enumerates that in case the services rendered are less than three years continuous engagement then his services can be terminated by giving one month’s notice in writing. We observe that the services of the applicant have been terminated under rule 8 of GDS (Conduct & Engagement) Rules 2011 (Annexure R/2) by giving him one month’s notice and a sum equivalent to the amount of TRCA plus Dearness Allowance as admissible during the period of notice.

Hence we find that there is no fault in the action of the respondents in terminating the services of the applicant on account of discrepancies in the selection process, as per rules.

In view of the above, there is no merit in the Original Application. The same is dismissed. No costs.