The High Court of Kerala confirmed the Central Administrative Tribunal's order that allows a postal employee's promotion date to be reassigned to enable eligibility for a Group B examination, dismissing the State's challenge.
The Original Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON
THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 23RD JYAISHTA, 1941
OP (CAT).No.161 of 2016
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA 1131/2013 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH DATED 19-02-2016
PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, NEW DELHI110001.
2 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POSTS DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, DAK BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110001.
3 THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL KERALA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.
BY ADVS. SRI. P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL SRI.T.V.VINU, CGC
RESPONDENT/APPLICANT:
P.K.SAJILAKUMARI ASSISTANT POSTMASTER (ACCOUNTS),HEAD POST OFFICE, KOLLAM-691001.
BY ADVS. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.) SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) SHRI A.V.XAVIER SRI.ELIAS KURIAN SMT.P.S.SIJI SMT.SHYNI GEORGE SRI.S.VIBHEESHANAN
THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.06.2019, THE COURT ON 13.06.2019 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
O.P.(CAT) No.161/2016
2
JUDGMENT
Ashok Menon, J.
The Union of India, the Director General of Posts
and the Chief Post Master General, Kerala Circle are the petitioners herein aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench in O.A.No.1131/2013 dated 19.02.2016 filed by the
respondent herein.
service was eligible to appear for PSS Group B Examination. The applicant should have become eligible
O.P.(CAT) No.161/2016
3
to appear for the said Examination in 1997. She was not
given promotion on time as LSG, and hence she filed O.A.No.481/2009 before the Tribunal and got an interim direction enabling her to appear for the Group B Examination in 2009 and cleared it. She claims appointment to Group B cadre by virtue of her clearing the Examination. But she was not promoted for the reason that she did not complete 5 years of service as LSG at the time of writing the Examination.
before the Tribunal to get a declaration that her
appearance for Group B Examination was valid and that she may be directed to include in the cadre. The said O.A. is still pending. O.A.No.323/2009 was allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 01.11.2011 directing reconsideration of the applicant for her eligibility to the cadre of LSG at an earlier date to which she was entitled. In compliance with that order, the promotion of the applicant to the cadre of LSG was reassigned notionally with effect from 27.12.2006. The applicant would claim that she was actually entitled to get promoted as LSG on completion of 3 years service, with
O.P.(CAT) No.161/2016
4
effect from 01.01.2003, as there was vacancy, which was
not properly taken account of, and therefore, the notional promotion given to her with effect from 27.12.2006 is not proper and no reason was stated for delaying the promotion to her. In case the promotion as LSG is reassigned with effect from 01.01.2003
instead 27.12.2006, she would be eligible to write the Examination for inclusion in Group B cadre in 2009,
when she actually cleared the Examination. Therefore, she challenges the act of the petitioners herein in fixing her notional promotion with effect from 27.12.2006 as arbitrary, illegal and unjust.
notionally with effect from 27.12.2006. She is
therefore not eligible to write the Examination for PSS Group B cadre in 2009 for having completed only 3 years by that time and not 5 years as required by law.
O.P.(CAT) No.161/2016
5
directed the respondents to obtain the seniority list weeding out the names of those who are no longer in service and then to fill up all vacancies in HSG-II and LSG as per seniority and eligibility of employees. Annexure R4 list of LSG Accountants as on 01.07.1987 consisting two entries namely, permanent and officiating. From which it is evident that as on
1.7.1987, 25 LSG officials were officiating in HSG-II in general line and the total number of vacancies in LSG as on 1.7.1987 is 40. It is also observed by the Tribunal that there were sufficient number of general line since no promotions were made as per Recruitment Rules from 1983. It is found that applicant, who is in Sl.No.96, is eligible for promotion as LSG in 1991. It is observed that the respondents committed error in not conducting the post vacancy norms based on LSG promotion time and are required to do diligently and that the applicant's turn if so done would come in the
year 2004 and would certainly have given her the advantage of 5 years service in the post making her eligible to write the Examination in 2009. Applicant
O.P.(CAT) No.161/2016
6
passed the Group B Examination held in 2010 for the
vacancies in 2009. Had the promotion to the post of LSG cadre given to her on time in 2004, she would have had 5 years of service in LSG cadre at the time of appearing for Group B Examination. The retirements were not properly considered, which prevented her from being promoted on time, and thus the O.A. was allowed by the Tribunal.
DPC was constituted for ascertaining the suitability of
the applicant along with other eligible officials and recommendation was made to promote the applicant with effect from 27.12.2006 taking into account her seniority in the cadre of Accountant, and therefore, she does not have the requisite 5 years time to appear
for Group B Examination in 2009. The calculation of
the vacancies by the Tribunal is erroneous, and therefore the applicant could never have been eligible for promotion as LSG with effect from 2004 as found by
the Tribunal. The veracity of the seniority list
O.P.(CAT) No.161/2016
7
produced by the applicant has been challenged by the petitioners. It is also pointed out that the applicant has raised contradictory claims with respect to her date of promotion. For that reason it is prayed that order of the Tribunal may be reversed and set aside.
directed to recast the seniority in accordance with the rules weeding out the retired persons. The applicant has clearly stated that as per Annexure MA3 several persons have retired and the petitioners had submitted a list of persons, who were promoted and also eligible for reassignment. Based on which, the applicant ought
to have been promoted on 30.06.1989 to the vacancy, which resulted due to the retirement of M.P.Sekharan.
But at that point in time, the applicant had not completed 10 years and therefore, she ought to have
been promoted with effect from 16.11.1991. It is the
argument of the applicant that the Department had never
challenged Annexure MA3 nor they did not file any
objection to it, which indicates that the retirement
O.P.(CAT) No.161/2016
8
and vacancies created as suggested in Annexure MA3
stands uncontroverted. The order of the Tribunal therefore, will have to be upheld.
post of LSG with effect from 2004 as pointed out by the Tribunal, she is entitled to be promoted as PSS Group B. We find no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal calling for any interference.
The Original Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
V.CHITAMBARESH
JUDGE
Sd/-
ASHOK MENON
JUDGE
dkr
O.P.(CAT) No.161/2016
9
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
| EXHIBIT P1 | COPY OF 15.11.2013 |
THE FILED |
OA. BY |
NO. 1131/2013 DATED THE RESPONDENT. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EXHIBIT P2 | COPY OF 21.03.2014 |
REPLY BY THE |
S PE |
TATEMENT FILED DATED TITIONERS. |
| EXHIBIT P3 | COPY OF 15.01.2016 |
MA N FILED |
O. THE |
180/00112/2016 DATED RESPONDENT. |
| EXHIBIT P4 | COPY OF 29.01.2016 NO. 180/00 |
THE FILED 112/201 |
RE BY 6. |
PLY STATEMENT DATED THE PETITIONERS IN MA |
| EXHIBIT P5 | COPY OF TH 19-02-2016 TRIBUNAL, |
E ORDER OF T ERNAKUL |
IN HE AM |
OA NO. 1131/2013 DATED CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE BENCH. |
| EXHIBIT P6 | COPY OF TH 08-02-2016 |
E ORDER . |
IN | OA NO. 303/2012 DATED |
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal directing the reassignment of the applicant's promotion date to enable eligibility for Group B examination should be set aside?
Whether the calculation of vacancies by the Tribunal was erroneous in determining the applicant's date of notional promotion?
Whether the petitioners have a valid case based on the seniority list and retirement records to challenge the Tribunal's order?
UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, NEW DELHI
THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POSTS
THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL KERALA CIRCLE
P.K.SAJILAKUMARI
V. CHITAMBARESH
ASHOK MENON
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
