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 O/o Notification No. R&E/1-12/2025, dated 09.06.2025, Para 3. Eligibility Criteria, Category (B) (i), and Note 2, vide Annexure A-3, issued by the Chief Postmaster General, Karnataka Circle, Bengaluru-560001-Respondent no 2.
(B)Consequently, direct the respondents to select the participants of LDCE, according to the Marks scored and Central Administrative Tribunalbased on merit list, ignoring Category (A) and (B).
(C)Grant any other relief as deemed fit into the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of Justice & equality.”
The facts in brief as narrated by the applicant are that he was engaged as GDS from 25.06.2014. He appeared in Limited Department Competitive Examination (LDCE) for recruitment of MTS cadre held on 23.06.2020 for the vacancies of 2018 and got selected and appointed as MTS from 31.12.2020. Office of the 2nd Respondent issued notification dated 09.06.2025 for appearing in the LDCE from the willing and eligible candidates (MTS/Postman/GDS), fulfilling the eligibility criteria for promotion to the cadre of Postal Assistant and Sorting Assistant for the vacancy year 2025. Further a notification dated 16.07.2025 was issued inviting the applications for LDCE examination for the post of Postman and Mail Guard from eligible MTS officials for the vacancy year 2025. The date of LDCE earlier scheduled on 20.07.2025 as per Notification dated 09.06.2025 was modified to 17.08.2025 vide communication dated 23.07.2025, issued by the Department of Posts. The applicant submitted his application for LDCE for the cadre of Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant to be held on 17.08.2025. The applicant is aggrieved by Central Administrative Tribunal the classification made in the eligibility criteria as Category (A) and Category (B). Hence this OA.
Learned Counsel Shri P. Kamalesan representing the applicant submitted that the applicant was appointed as GDS from 25.06.2014 and selected in LDCE and promoted as MTS against vacancies of 2018, in the LDCE held during the year 2020. Had the LDCE was held during the vacancy year 2018, he could have been selected and appointed from the year 2018 and would have completed 7 years of service as MTS making him eligible under Category(A), to appear for LDCE for the cadre of Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant, examination held on 17.08.2025. Hence his seniority in MTS Cadre should be considered from 2018 under Category (A). The applicant, if he is considered at Category (B), he will be selected only in the case of non-availability of Category (A), which is causing grave injustice and deprival of promotional avenues.
Learned Counsel Shri Sayed S. Kazi representing the respondents submitted that Category (A) has been framed by giving the primary eligibility to the departmental officials who have rendered requisite service purely as a departmental official. In respect of Central Administrative Tribunal Category (B), the departmental officials who do not have the requisite regular service can appear for the LDCE by taking their departmental service and engagement as Gramin Dak Sevak service together. Since the applicant has completed four years of regular service in the cadre of MTS as on 01.01.2025, he was considered and allowed to participate in the examination under Category (B). The examination has been conducted on 17.08.2025 and results have also been declared vide Memo dated 04.11.2025 by scrupulously following the Recruitment Rules and guidelines. Hence, OA deserves to be rejected.
Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perusing the material on record, it is evident that the applicant having applied for the LDCE to be conducted on 17.08.2025 under Category (B) , has challenged the classification regarding the eligibility criteria contemplated in the Notification dated 09.06.2025. In Note-2 appended thereto, it is made clear that officials mentioned at Category (B) will be considered only if sufficient officials mentioned at Category (A) are not available for filling up the notified vacancy. The applicant submitted his application dated 01.07.2025 for LDCE to be held on 17.08.2025. It is well settled that after participating in the selection process, challenging the procedure adopted cannot be Central Administrative Tribunal countenanced. No Rules of the game could be challenged after the examination was conducted on 17.08.2025. The applicant has filed this OA on 17.09.2025 i.e., after the examination held on 17.08.2025. The plea of the applicant that, had the LDCE was conducted during the year 2019 for the vacancies of 2018 to the post of MTS, the applicant would have been selected and appointed as MTS against 2018, making him eligible under Category (A), is wholly misconceived. On surmises and conjunctures, no seniority can be fixed to the applicant in the MTS cadre. It is not uncommon conducting the LDCE during the subsequent years based on various reasons and the same is applicable in general not individually to the applicant alone.
As the results have already been declared vide Memo dated 04.11.2025 issued by the competent authority and the applicant having not been selected, no interference is warranted with the eligibility criteria fixed in the Notification dated 09.06.2025 and the appointment of the selected candidates. Rights accrued to the selected and appointed candidates cannot be disturbed, more so they being not arrayed as parties to the proceedings. Viewed from any angle, OA does not merit consideration. Central Administrative Tribunal
Resultantly, OA stands dismissed.
No order as to costs.