Shri Prakash Bhowal & Ors. vs The Union Of India & Ors.

PER: RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

By way of this Original Application (O.A.), the applicants have approached this Tribunal seeking the following relief(s):

Brief facts of the case are that, pursuant to the notifications issued by the respondents for the posts of GDS Sub-Post Master, Mail Deliverer/Mail Carrier (for short, “GDS SPM/MD/MC”) under the Tinsukia Sub-Division, published during the months of May and June, 2016, the applicants applied for the posts mentioned in the said notifications, as under:

Their grievance is that, during the pendency of the selection process for engagement to the approved categories of GDS posts, respondent No. 3, i.e., the Assistant Director General (GDS), issued the impugned Circular No. 17-23/2016-GDS dated 01.08.2016, changing the norms, criteria and procedure for selection, and directed all Heads of Circles to stop the selection/engagement of all types of Gramin Dak Sevaks with immediate effect. However, the selection/engagement of some candidates whose selection had already been finalized was allowed to proceed, thereby depriving the other similarly situated candidates, including the present applicants, who were at the same stage of the selection process as those candidates whose engagement had been made.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that it is a settled position of law that similarly situated persons are entitled to similar benefits, as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in K.C. Sharma v. Union of India, (1997) 6 SCC 721; State of Karnataka v. C. Lalitha, (2006) 2 SCC 747; and State of U.P. v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, (2015) 1 SCC 347. Accordingly, he submits that the applicants are also entitled to be engaged as GDS MD/MC (now ABPM) by finalizing their pending selection processes.

The respondents have stated that the selection, appointment and service conditions of GDS are now governed by the Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2020. Since the earlier selection process had been discontinued in 2016 itself, the applicants have no enforceable right to seek revival of the said process at this belated stage.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and material available on record.

It is an admitted position that the selection process in question was initiated in 2016 and, when the process was nearing completion, the Head Office, vide Circular dated 01.08.2016, directed all the Circles to stop the selection/engagement of all types of GDS, as the selection process was thereafter to be conducted through the online mode. Since the selection process in the present case had been conducted through the offline mode, the respondents discontinued the said process and shifted to the online selection process. One candidate, namely Shri Debajit Patar, being aggrieved by the discontinuance of the selection process, approached this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 359/2016. This Tribunal, vide order dated 22.11.2018, directed the respondents to complete the process for consideration of his engagement, subject to due verification of his documents and in accordance with law. The respondents thereafter approached the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in W.P.(C) No. 4979/2019. The Hon’ble High Court, vide order dated 19.06.2023, dismissed the said writ petition and also allowed W.P.(C) No. 1060/2021 filed by Shri Debajit Patar, setting aside the impugned letter dated 01.08.2016 insofar as it related to his case. Thereafter, in compliance with the directions of the Hon’ble High Court, Shri Debajit Patar was provisionally engaged as GDS MD/MC (now ABPM) at Tirap B.O. in 2024.

The grievance of the applicants is essentially that, being candidates in the same selection process, they are also entitled to the benefit extended to ShriDebajit Patar. However, we find that the present applicants did not challenge the discontinuance of the selection process in 2016 and remained silent for several years. Shri Debajit Patar, on the other hand, had approached this Tribunal as early as in 2016 and pursued his claim before this Tribunal as well as the Hon’ble High Court. The present applicants approached this Tribunal only in 2024, after the litigation pursued by Shri Debajit Patar had culminated in his favour. In these circumstances, the applicants cannot seek to reopen the selection process at this belated stage merely on the basis of the benefit granted to another candidate pursuant to his own litigation.

It is settled law that mere inclusion in a select list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shankarsan Dash v. Union ofIndia, (1991) 3 SCC 47. In Tej Prakash Pathak& Ors.v.Rajasthan High Court & Ors.,2024 INSC 847, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated that the rules governing a selection process ordinarily cannot be altered to the prejudice of candidates after commencement of the selection process.

In the present case, the subsequent online selection process has already been undertaken and, as stated by the respondents, the selection process has substantially progressed and appointments have been made against the vacancies. The present applicants approached this Tribunal after a lapse of about eight years from the discontinuance of the earlier selection process. No interim order was granted in their favour and no post was kept vacant or reserved for them. At this stage, granting the relief sought by the applicants would have the effect of unsettling the subsequent selection process and would also adversely affect the persons who have already been selected pursuant thereto. The applicants, having remained silent for several years and approached this Tribunal only after the successful culmination of the litigation pursued by Shri Debajit Patar, cannot seek to reopen the concluded selection process merely on the basis of the relief granted to him in his individual case. In the circumstances, the applicants cannot be permitted to derive benefit from the litigation pursued by another candidate after having themselves chosen not to challenge the discontinuance of the selection process at the relevant time.

In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no merit in the present O.A. The applicants have failed to establish any legal or factual basis for claiming parity with Shri Debajit Patar or for reopening the selection process initiated in 2016 at this belated stage. Accordingly, the O.A. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.