AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER: MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
The applicant has filed this original application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
“(A)Quash the Memo No. VJP/ASPW/BMJ/F-1/19 dated-30.10.2019 vide Annexure A-6 issued by the Assistant Supdt. Of Posts Vijayapura West Sub Division-586101 -Respondent No 4.
(B)Quash the Memo No: VJP/ASPWS/F-1/BMJ/2020 dated-22.02.2021, vide Annexure A-14 issued by the O/o Assistant Supdt of Posts Vijayapura West Sub Division, Vijayapura-Central Administrative Tribunal586101 - Respondent No 4.
C) Quash the Memo No. VJP/Appeal/02/BMJ/2020-21 dated-17.05.2021, vide Annexure A-16 issued by the O/o Supdt of Post Offices, Vijayapura Division, Vijayapura-586104 - Respondent No 5.
(D)Consequently, direct the respondents to reinstate into service from 23.02.2021 with all consequential benefits.
(E)Grant any other relief as deemed fit into the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of Justice & Equity.”
The facts in brief as narrated by the applicant are that he was engaged as GDS MD/MC at Darga BO A/W Bijapur VS SO under Bijapur Division from 31.01.2015. Bridge Course Certificate/Marks Card issued by the Karnataka State Open University (KSOU), submitted by the applicant was sent for verification to the Registrar, KSOU and accordingly the Genuineness Certificate was issued by the KSOU by letter dated 26.02.2015. The Respondent No.2 issued instructions vide letter dated 11.01.2018 regarding clarification about the Bridge course offered by KSOU. Based on which, the Respondent No.5 instructed the Respondent No.4 to initiate action as deemed fit at his end. Accordingly, Respondent No.4 initiated inquiry under Rule 10 of Department of Posts Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2011, vide letter dated 30.10.2019, which culminated in the order of removal from engagement issued by the Disciplinary Authority -Respondent No.4. Being aggrieved, the applicant preferred appeal before Appellate Authority, which was rejected by order dated 17.05.2021. Hence this OA.
Learned Counsel Shri P. Kamalesan representing the applicant submitted that the respondents without application of mind proceeded and presumed that the applicant has obtained Bridge course certificate for the year 2014-15. The Bridge course certificate was issued to the applicant for the academic year 2013-14. However, the applicant had passed the SSLC examination conducted by Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board during June, 2003 and also the Pre-University Examination (2 years) on 13.05.2005. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.51749/2019 [(DD: 01.03.2021)-Dada Peer vs. Chief Post Master General and others], W.P.No.25540/2022, [(DD:30.08.2024) - Santhosh Kumar R. vs. Union of India and others] and W.P.No.32792/2019, [(DD: 03.08.2022) – Gangamma and others vs. Karnataka State Open University and others], learned Counsel submitted that the present case is squarely covered by the said judgments.
Learned Counsel Shri N. Amaresh representing the respondents submitted that the applicant secured engagement to the post of ABPM Vijayapura by submitting the Bridge course certificate which was not recognised by the KSOU. The certificate was issued on 23.04.2014 by KSOU and it pertains to examination conducted during March, 2014. It was confirmed by KSOU that the Bridge course was not recognised by the State of Karnataka and as such the same has been completely stopped from 2014. It is also stated by the Dean (Academic) of the said University vide letter dated 24.02.2016 that it is left to the discretion of the respective Boards/authorities/statutory bodies to recognize the certificate issued in respect of the Bridge Courses for the purpose of job etc. Hence the department has taken a stand vide letter dated 11.01.2018 to terminate the services of all such candidates who produced certificate of Bridge Course from KSOU and engaged with regular engagement order after 2014 based on the 10th marks card issued by KSOU. Therefore, the action was taken to terminate the services of the applicant following the due procedure under Rule 10 of Department of Posts, Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2011. Disciplinary Authority accepting the inquiry report passed the order of removal from engagement with immediate effect which shall not be a disqualification for future appointment, which has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority. Learned Counsel further submitted that orders of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka referred to, by the learned Counsel for the applicant are in personam and cannot be applicable to the facts of the present case.
We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
The points that arise for our consideration are:
Whether the SSLC marks sheet issued by the KSOU for the academic year 2013-2014 would entitle the applicant for engagement to the post of GDS MD/MC?
Whether the termination of the applicant vide impugned order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 22.02.2021 confirmed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 17.05.2021 is justifiable?
The issue involved herein is no more res-integra in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Santhosh Kumar R. supra. The relevant paragraphs are quoted hereunder for ready reference:
3.The facts to be noted for the purpose of this order are, the Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Bengaluru West Division had issued Notification calling for applications to fill up posts of GDS-MD (Speed Post) at Peenya small industries Post Office, Bengaluru in November 2014. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner had applied for the said post vide application dated 15.11.2014. It was the conceded case of the petitioner that he was selected and appointed to the post vide Memos dated 25.11.2014 and 02.12.2014. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner has undergone training and joined the post on 06.12.2014. The petitioner had passed SSLC from a School in Bengaluru conducted by the Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board in the year 2004 in 2nd class securing 318 marks. Since he secured less marks in SSLC, he had appeared for the 10th standard bridge-course examination conducted by the Karnataka State Open University, Mysuru (‘KSOU’ for short) in the Academic Year 2013-14. He passed the said examination with first class securing 457 marks.
4… …………………………………………………………………..
5.It is noted that the primary reason for proposed termination was that the 10th standard examination passed by the petitioner from KSOU is not recognized by Government of Karnataka. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that the recognition had been accorded to all Open Universities by Distance Education Council for a period of 5 years and the period of 5 years which ended on 2013-14. The petitioner having passed the 10th standard examination conducted by the KSOU during 2013-14, the same being within 5 years, the petitioner is having the necessary qualification for being appointed.
6.The case of the respondents before the Tribunal was that the Chief Post Master General issued a clarification dated 09.03.2016. Based on the clarification issued by KSOU vide letter dated 24.02.2016 wherein it is clarified that students who have completed the bridge-course are eligible to take admissions in further courses in KSOU and some other Universities. It is to be noted that bridge-courses are not recognized by the State Government of Karnataka. The same have been completely stopped from 2014. The Tribunal also noted the fact that the University Grants Commission (‘UGC’ for short) had vide public notice dated 16.06.2014 mentioned that the programmes offered by KSOU, Mysuru have not been recognized by the UGC beyond 2012-13. Accordingly, the Chief Post Master General who had issued letter dated 09.03.2016, conveyed to the all sub-appointing authorities to take necessary action and review all such cases where engagements have been made based on the marks obtained in the bridge-course. It is Central Administrative Tribunalpursuant thereto, a show-cause notice was issued which became the subject matter of challenge before the Tribunal. We find that the Tribunal has dismissed the OA filed by the petitioner by stating in paragraphs No.8 to 20 as under: ………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………
7.From the above it is noted, the primary reason for the Tribunal to dismiss the petition is that the petitioner having completed the bridge-course in the year 2013-14 when the bridge-course was not recognized, he could not have claimed an appointment on the basis of the said bridge-course. During the hearing on 01.08.2024, Sri. Jayanna.G.R, learned counsel for the petitioner had relied upon a notification dated 05.03.2018 issued by the Government of Karnataka which interalia states that the bridge-course is recognized for the year 2013-14 and 2014-15. By relying upon the said notification, his contention was that the petitioner having completed the bridge course in 2013-14, the petitioner is eligible for being appointed. In other words, the appointment being valid, he could not have been terminated by the respondents. On 01.08.2024, we granted time to the learned counsel for the respondents, to seek instructions.
8.………………………………………………………………….
9.On this submission of Sri. Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sri. Dadapeer -Vs.- Chief Post Master General and Others [WP No.51749/2019, decided on 01.03.2021] wherein on identical facts, the Co-ordinate Bench has granted relief and set aside the order passed by the Tribunal. He concedes the Court had also said that the said judgment shall not form a precedent as it has been passed in the facts of that case. We have gone through the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The relevant facts, as noted by the Co-ordinate Bench are, in paragraphs No.2 to 12 which we reproduce as under: ………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………
11.From perusal of the judgment, it is clear that the Co-ordinate Bench was also considering the qualification secured by the candidate therein. It is clear that the candidate therein had also undertaken a course conducted by the KSOU. The question was whether the said course was equivalent to SSLC? In paragraph No.14, the Co-ordinate Bench noted that at the time of the appointment, the candidate therein had produced the statement of marks issued by the KSOU relating to the bridge-course which stated it was equal to SSLC on the basis of which the respondent had processed the application, resulting in appointment. It is only after two years, based on a show-cause notice, action was taken against the petitioner therein. Suffice to state, in paragraph No.20, the Court has held that in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner therein is entitled for the grant of discretionary relief by the Court under petitioner was not qualified as on the date of notification. It follows the petitioner who had worked for two years and obtained the educational qualification, had qualified for the discretionary relief.
12.We also, for parity of reasons, hold that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the judgment in the aforesaid case. In the case on hand, the petitioner had worked for three years pursuant to his appointment in the Postal Department, Government of India. On the date when the petitioner had got the appointment i.e., on 02.12.2014, there was no public notice issued by the UGC. The same was issued by UGC, only on 15.06.2015. By that time, the petitioner had already secured an appointment and had worked for almost six months. In any case, the impugned action was sought to be taken by the Postal Department only in the year 2017 when they issued a show-cause notice. By that time, the petitioner had put in three years of service.”
Accordingly, setting aside the dismissal order of the Tribunal, the termination order and subsequent corrigendum were set aside. Subsequently the said Shri Santhosh Kumar R., filed OA No.300/2025 before this Tribunal seeking a direction to the respondents to declare the result of Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) held on 10.01.2021 by opening the sealed cover in which his results were kept in, further to provide all consequential benefits which accrued thereof. This Tribunal vide order dated 07.10.2025 disposed of the said OA directing the respondents to declare the result of the applicant therein, in the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination held on 10.01.2021 by opening the sealed cover and provide all consequential benefits accrued thereof, to the applicant therein,. Further making it clear that the said order will be subject to the result of the Review Petition No.268/2025 pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka.
The present case is identical to the facts and circumstances considered by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Santhosh Kumar R., supra. That being the position, this OA stands disposed of in terms of the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.N.25540/2022 dated 30.08.2024, however, subject to the result of R.P. No.268/2025 pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka.
We have taken a similar view in OA No.678/2024, dated 31.07.2026 (Sunilkumar vs. Union of India and others) involving the identical issue. However, considering the aspect of delay in filing this OA before this Tribunal, we deem it appropriate to direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant with effect from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Resultantly, the orders dated 30.10.2019 (Annexure A6), 22.02.2021 (Annexure A14) issued by Respondent No.4 and 17.05.2021 (Annexure A16) issued by the Respondent No.5 are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the applicant into service from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, subject the outcome of Review Petition No.268/2025 in W.P.No.25540/2022 pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka. The consequential benefits such as continuity of service/notional seniority etc. shall be considered by the respondents. However, the applicant shall not be entitled for arrears of salary for the period not worked.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, OA stands disposed of.
No order as to costs.