Superintendent of Post Office and Others vs Ashokbhai Motilal Pandya and Others

V.M. Sahai, J.—We have heard Mr Y.V. Vaghela, learned Counsel for the Petitioners. This Special Civil Application has been filed challenging the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 15.12.2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench in O.A. No. 286 of 2009 by which communications dated 11.11.2008 and 11.6.2008 by which the Respondent was not considered for promotion in Group-D on the plea that he had not passed Standard VIII.

The brief facts of the case are that Respondent No. 1 was appointed as G.D.S. Packer, Adipur on 26.2.1980. His educational qualification was upto Standard VII. A claim petition was filed by the Respondent before the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal"). It was claimed by the Respondent to appoint him in Group-D cadre either on Test Category or Non-Test Category before attaining age of fifty years. The admitted facts were that the Respondent was appointed as EDA which is now termed as GDS w.e.f. 26.2.1980 vide communication dated 11.6.2008. Mr M.V. Trivedi, who was junior to him was promoted to Group ''D'' cadre and allotted to SPM Anjar Unit. According to the Appellant, the Respondent had passed Standard VII which is not the educational qualification prescribed for promotion in Group "D" cadre, therefore, he was not promoted.

The Tribunal has considered the Department of Posts (Group ''D'' posts) Recruitment Rules, 2002 which provides that Standard VIII pass or Middle School standard VIII pass is the essential qualification for direct recruitment. As per Schedule annexed to the aforesaid Rules, for posts in subordinate offices, age limit has been prescribed to be 18-25 years and qualification is middle school passed but column 9 states whether age and educational qualification prescribed for direct recruits will apply in the case of promotees and the provision made in the Rule is "not applicable". Thus the Tribunal came to the conclusion that age and educational qualification criteria for direct recruits were not applicable to the promotion quota and no educational qualification was prescribed for promotion under the statutes or rules. Thus, the Respondents were entitled for promotion and the Appellants have denied promotion to either for test or non-test category. The Tribunal had directed the Appellants to consider the claim of promotion of the Respondents by passing a speaking order with regard to the claim of the Respondents and such exercise had to be completed within a period of three months from the date of production of the order of the Tribunal before the Appellants. This order was passed by the Tribunal on 15.12.2010. The Appellants did not comply with the order of the Tribunal till the petition is filed before this Court.

Therefore, since the order of the Tribunal had not been complied by the Appellants within the period granted by the Tribunal, the period of three months shall start running from today. The Appellants shall pass an order in compliance of the directions of the Tribunal within three months from today.

Subject to the aforesaid observations, this petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.