Allowed

K.R.Rajesh Kumar v. the Inspector of Posts

Kerala HC9 Aug 2017OP (CAT)/201/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the petitioner's original petition against an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Court directed the Department to finalise the selection process for the post of Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Deliverer, permitting the petitioner to apply and participate based on his past service while considering age relaxation norms.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Department to finalise the selection process and permit the petitioner to apply and participate, considering his past service and granting appropriate age relaxation.

K.R.Rajesh Kumar Vs the Inspector of Posts — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017/18TH SRAVANA, 1939 OP (CAT).No. 201 of 2017 (Z) -----------------------------

¶5

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA 554/2016 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH DATED 23.01.2017

¶6

PETITIONER/APPLICANT:

¶7

K.R.RAJESH KUMAR KUNJUKATTU HOUSE, PANACHIKAPARA, POONJAR P.O, KOTTAYAM 686 581 WORKING AS GDSMD POONJAR SUB POST OFFICE.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.P.R.PADMANABHAN NAIR

¶9

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶10

THE INSPECTOR OF POSTS PALA SUB DIVISION, PALA 686 575

¶11

THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES,KOTTAYAM DIVISION, KOTTAYAM-1

¶12

POST MASTER GENERAL CENTRAL REGION, KOCHI 682 016

¶13

CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL KERALA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033

¶14

UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION, NEW DELHI 110 001

¶15

R1-R5 BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL

¶16

THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-08-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

OP (CAT).No. 201 of 2017 (Z)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION ALONG WITH THE ANNEXURE THERE OF EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ANNEXURE R1 EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH ANNEXURE

¶21

EXHIBIT P4 ORDER DATED 23-11-2017 IN O.A NO 180/00554/2016 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL -----------------------

¶22

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶23

& SHIRCY V, JJ.

¶24

O.P(CAT)No.201 OF 2017

¶25

Dated this the 9^th August, 2017

¶26

J U D G M E NT

¶27

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.

¶28

Challenge is against Ext.P4 order passed by the Tribunal, whereby interference was declined with regard to the prayer to set aside Annexure A1 Notification dated 10.03.2016 for filling up the post of Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Deliverer ('GDS MD' in short) at Poonjar and to direct the respondents to appoint the applicant to the said post considering his past experience as GDSMD, as projected in his representation vide Annexure A2.

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Solicitor General.

¶30

The case projected by the petitioner is that he came to be appointed on casual engagement to the aforesaid post when the slot became vacant pursuant to promotion and transfer of the regular incumbent to another station, i.e Ettumannoor . It was accordingly that the petitioner was discharging his duties as GDSMD at Poonjar from 04.11.2015, but for a short gap of one

¶31

¶32

O.P(CAT)No.201 OF 2017

¶33

or two months, when another person by name Gopalakrishnan was engaged. Even after the said short spell, the petitioner came to occupy the chair and is continuing as above. While so, Annexure A1 notification was issued by the Department to fill up the said vacancy, stipulating that only persons within the age limit of 18 – 30 will be eligible to apply . As a matter of fact, the petitioner had crossed the said age limit; and according to the petitioner, the Department used to appoint persons against such posts – it actually not being departmental post (formerly known as extra departmental) and governed by separate rules. At that point of time, the age limit was 18 -65 years.

¶34

The petitioner made Annexure A2/A3 representations seeking to consider the experience and service rendered by him and to appoint him to the post in question, which was never responded to. This made the petitioner to approach the Tribunal with the following prayers:

¶35

“1. to declare that Annexure A1 notice dated 10.03.2016 is arbitrary and so illegal and cannot be acted upon and also to quash any proceedings completed under the above Annexure A1.

¶36

2. to direct the first respondent to consider the applicant for appointment for the post of Gramin Dak

¶37

O.P(CAT)No.201 OF 2017

¶38

¶39

Sevak Mail Deliverer at Poonjar Sub Post Office considering his past experience as GDSMD as stated in his representation in Annexure A2.

¶40

3. To pass any other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

¶41

The claim was resisted by the Department by filing a reply statement, to which, the petitioner filed Ext.P3 rejoinder.

¶42

After hearing both the sides, the Tribunal passed Ext.P4

¶43

order, the operative portion of which as contained in paragraph 10 is to the following effect:

¶44

“The recruitment/selection process has not been completed. Hence, the benefit of Annexure A10 may be available to the candidate to be selected for the said post. But his claim that his past experience as GDSMD should also be considered for appointment to the post of GDS Mail Deliverer at Poonjar Sub Post Office cannot be accepted. However, if the applicant applies for the post, and if the respondents relax the age so as to allow the applicant to participate in the selection process, then he can be allowed to participate in the selection process. It is made clear that the selection shall be purely on merit.”

¶45

On being aggrieved of the said course ordered by the Tribunal,

¶46

the petitioner is before this Court by filing this Original Petition.

¶47

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on an

¶48

¶49

O.P(CAT)No.201 OF 2017

¶50

earlier instance, with regard to the appointment to the post of GDS Branch Postmaster, the petitioner had moved the Department and thereafter the Tribunal as well by filing OA.91 of 2014, which was disposed of as per Annexure A6, directing to consider his claim as per the rules. The fact that the petitioner was working in his capacity as mentioned therein was also specifically adverted to. But no positive step was taken by the Department, who appointed somebody else virtually thwarting the claim of the petitioner. Despite the long tenure of service rendered by the petitioner, it is simply given a go-bye. Now the slot is sought to be filled up by fresh hands, that too unreasonably putting up various restrictions. It is also pointed out that by virtue of Annexure A10, revised guidelines have been issued enhancing the age limit. When the petitioner was initially engaged on 04.11.2015, he had not crossed the age of 40 years, his date of birth being 30.12.1975. As such, the petitioner is eligible to be considered, also granting the benefit of age relaxation, if at all that is required, considering the service rendered by the petitioner, submits the learned counsel.

¶51

The learned Assistant Solicitor General points out that

¶52

¶53

O.P(CAT)No.201 OF 2017

¶54

the revised rules (amended provisions) were issued (Annexure A10) only on 23.06.2016 and Annexure A1 notification was

¶55

issued prior to that date. It is stated that on the date of Annexure A1 notification, the petitioner had crossed the age of 40 years. It is further added that even as per Annexure A10, he was not within the age limit. There is not much dispute with regard to the earlier engagement as well, though the extent/tenure is sought to be disputed to some extent. In any view of the matter, the Tribunal has granted liberty as per Ext.P4 verdict, to have considered the candidature of the petitioner, if he applies for the post, subject to relaxation of age limit to an appropriate extent permitting the applicant to participate in the selection process.

¶56

The learned Asst. Solicitor General submits that part of the selection process like cycling test is already over. But in so far as Ext.P4 verdict has not been sought to be challenged from the part of the Department and in view of the fact that the petitioner was serving the Department from 04.11.2015, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the Department to finalise the selection process; also permitting the petitioner to participate in

¶57

¶58

O.P(CAT)No.201 OF 2017

¶59

the proceedings based on the application stated as preferred by the petitioner. The said consideration shall be in tune with the relaxed norms as per Annexure A10 and the matter of age relaxation to the extent the applicant has served the Department shall also be considered by the Department, in accordance with law, passing appropriate orders in this regard.

¶60

The Original Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶61

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE

¶62

SHIRCY V, JUDGE

¶63

K.R.Rajesh Kumar v. the Inspector of Posts

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.R.Rajesh Kumar v. the Inspector of Posts

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Razak.K Vs the Administrator of Lakshadweep

Remjith. E.R Vs Vipin Kumar v

Sethu Lakshmi N Pearson Vs State of Kerala

Union of India Vs Sini T.R.

Mohammed Makher.M Vs Union Territory of Lakshadweep and Other

K.S.Sunilkumar Vs the Chairman & Secretary