Disposed

V.K.Somarajan Pillai v. Union of India

Kerala HC4 Mar 2021OP (CAT)/155/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cancellation of a Postman appointment was proposed by show cause notice. The Court set aside the Tribunal's merits determination and directed the Chief Post Master General to consider the employee's explanation after a hearing, including available vacancies and equitable considerations favouring retention.

What did the court decide?

Tribunal's order set aside; Chief Post Master General directed to hear the petitioner and decide the show cause notice independently, preferably within three months.

V.K.Somarajan Pillai Vs Union of India — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 13TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶7

OP (CAT).No.155 OF 2020

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN O.A.No.470/2018 DATED 19-08-2020 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH

¶9

PETITIONER/APPLICANT IN O.A.:

¶10

V.K.SOMARAJAN PILLAI, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.V.S KRISHNA KURUP, POSTMAN, PANDALAM MDG, PANDALAM-689 501, RESIDING PERMANENTLY AT VIRUTHETHU KIZHAKKETHIL, NJETTOOR, KULANADA, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 503, MOB:9496934449

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.M.R.HARIRAJ, SMT.THANUJA ROSHAN, SRI.VISWAJITH C.K, SMT.GANGA A.SANKAR, SMT.R.SUJA, SRI.CHACKOCHEN VITHAYATHIL, SMT.GISHA G. RAJ

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN O.A.:

¶13

1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, NEW DELHI-110 001.

¶14

2 CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL, KERALA CIRCLE, TRIVANDRUM-695 033.

¶15

3 SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, PATHANAMTHITTA POSTAL DIVISION, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 645.

¶16

BY SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶17

THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

ALEXANDER THOMAS & K.BABU, JJ.

¶19

O.P.(CAT) No. 155 of 2020

¶20

(arising out of the impugned final order dated 19.8.2020 in O.A. No. 470/2018 on the file of the CAT, Ernakulam Bench)

¶21

Dated this the 4^th day of March, 2021

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

The prayers in the afore captioned Original Petition (CAT)

¶24

filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India are as

¶25

follows: {See pages 6 & 7 of the paper book of this OP(CAT)}

¶26

“

¶27

i. To call for the records leading to Exhibit P1 quash the same and allow the Original Application as prayed for;

¶28

ii. To grant such other reliefs as may be prayed for and the court may deem fit to grant, and

¶29

iii. Grant the costs of this Original Application.”

¶30

Heard Sri.M.R.Hariraj, learned counsel appearing for the

¶31

petitioner in the O.P. (original applicant in the O.A. before the Tribunal) and Sri.P.Vijayakumar, learned Assistant Solicitor General of

¶32

India appearing for the respondents herein (respondents in the O.A. before the Tribunal) .

¶33

The prayers in Ext.P-2 Original Application O.A. No. 470/2018 filed by the petitioner herein, before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, are as follows: {See page 23 of the paper book of this OP(CAT)}

¶34

O.P.(CAT) No. 155 of 2020

¶35

..3..

¶36

“ i. To quash Annexure A4;

¶37

ii. To direct the respondents to permit the applicant to continue as Postman with all consequential benefits.

¶38

iii. Grant such other reliefs as this Honourable Tribunal may deem fit and proper.

¶39

iv. Grant the costs of this application.”

¶40

The Tribunal after hearing both sides has rendered the impugned Ext.P-1 final order dated 19.8.2020 dismissing O.A.No.470/2018 on the ground that there existed no vacancy unfilled among the notified vacancies, and that the claim of the petitioner for appointment to one of such vacancy for said selection is not tenable, and hence the O.A. was ordered to be dismissed.

¶41

The petitioner herein (original applicant in the O.A. before the Tribunal) was working as a GDS Branch Post Master in the Pathanamthitta Postal Division of the respondent Postal Department of the Union Government at the relevant time. He had appeared for the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) for appointment to the post of Postman as against the notified 12 vacancies of that selection year (2009) held on 20.12.2009. It appears that, out of the 12 vacancies 6 vacancies were set apart for departmental quota and the remaining 6 vacancies were set apart for the direct recruitment quota. In the

¶42

O.P.(CAT) No. 155 of 2020

¶43

..4..

¶44

direct recruitment quota, 1 vacancy was earmarked for the physically handicapped/physically disabled and 1 for sports quota. Further, out of the 4 vacancies, 2 were set apart for seniority quota and 2 for merit quota. {See para 4 on page 2 of the statement dated 27.10.2020 filed on behalf of the respondents in this OP(CAT)}

¶45

From the pleadings and materials on record it appears that 8 vacancies were set apart for appointment of GDS candidates like the petitioner, out of which 7 were utilized from the unreserved quota (UR) and 1 in the OBC reserved quota. Further, it appears to be common ground that 2 vacancies were filled up in the seniority service quota. Thus, it appears that 10 vacancies out of 12 vacancies were thus filled up and there remained 2 vacancies, one of which was set apart in the physically handicapped (PH) quota, and the other in the sports quota, which were not filled up due to lack of available candidates at that point of time. The marks obtained by the original applicant in the abovesaid LDCE was 119.5. The mark of the 7^th and the last candidate appointed in the UR quota is 120.5, which was above the marks obtained by the original applicant. The 8^th candidate was appointed in the OBC reserved quota and she had only 117 marks.

¶46

O.P.(CAT) No. 155 of 2020

¶47

..5..

¶48

Aggrieved by abovesaid selection, the original applicant had taken up the contention that setting apart one such vacancy in the OBC quota is illegal and ultra vires for the simple reason that the process of appointment of GDS to the post of Postman as per the abovesaid selection involves career advancement of serving GDS personnel like the applicant, and that therefore it cannot be said to be direct recruitment, and it would best be either a promotion or by transfer appointment, that since the abovesaid method of appointment cannot be construed as direct appointment, there is no question of appointing a person on the basis of backward class community reservation, either by the method of promotion or by transfer, so long as the method of appointment is one which is other than direct recruitment. The argument appears to be that OBC reservation is permissible only if the method of appointment is by direct recruitment and not otherwise. Second contention was also raised by the applicant that though, the total number of vacancies which was notified for the selection year in question (2009) was 12, only 10 has been filled up and that admittedly at that point of time 2 vacancies, one of which in the PH quota and the other in the sports quota could not be

¶49

..6..

¶50

O.P.(CAT) No. 155 of 2020

¶51

filled up due to lack of eligible personnel from among the serving GDS at that point of time. Raising the abovesaid grounds, the petitioner had approached the CAT, Ernakulam Bench, by filing O.A. No. 245/2012.

¶52

The Tribunal after hearing both sides has rendered Anx.A-1 final order dated 1.1.2013 in O.A. No. 245/2012, holding that the petitioner was entitled to succeed on both the grounds. As regards the first ground which was held that the method of appointment of existing and serving GDS personnel in the Postal Department by their appointment in the post of Postman in the very same Postal Department would amount to a method of appointment other than direct recruitment, and that in substance it is an appointment by promotion and therefore OBC reservation in method of appointment other than direct recruitment is illegal and ultra vires, and hence the appointment of 8^th candidate by setting apart the same in the OBC reservation quota is illegal and moreover, the said OBC candidate had secured 117 marks which is lower than the marks of 119.5 secured by the applicant in the LDCE. In that regard, it may be pertinent to refer to the marks of each of abovesaid 8 candidates as given on para 5 on page 2 of the

¶53

O.P.(CAT) No. 155 of 2020

¶54

..7..

¶55

statement dated 27.10.2020 filed by the respondents in this OP(CAT), which reads as follows:

¶56

Sl.No.	Name of the GDS selected for the Postman	Category	Marks
1	Sri/Smt Sreekala P.	UR	135
2	B. Thulasidas	UR	130
3	B. Lalitha	UR	128
4	S. Shibu	UR	128
5	P. G. Venu	UR	126.5
6	K. Sunil Kumar	UR	121
7	Ravi V. S.	UR	120.5
8	V. B. Ushakumari	OBC	117

¶57

As regards the second ground, the Tribunal found that there existed 2 vacancies or atleast 1 vacancy among the 12 notified vacancies for the selection year 2009 inasmuch as the post set apart in the PH quota and the sports quota were not by then filled up. Though the applicant had succeeded before the Tribunal on both the grounds, the Tribunal had very consciously and guardedly granted relief to the applicant only on the basis of second ground and specifically ordering that the OBC candidate who had secured lower marks than the petitioner need not be disturbed, and the petitioner may be accommodated in one among the unfilled vacancy for the said selection year. It may be pertinent to refer to

¶58

O.P.(CAT) No. 155 of 2020

¶59

..8..

¶60

the relevant portion of the directions issued by the Tribunal in paras 6 & 7 given on internal page 5 of Anx.A-1 order, which reads as follows:

¶61

“None of the physically handicapped candidates qualified in the examination. There is no contention on the part of the respondents that the sports quota is filled up either. The applicant who got 119.5 marks and is just below the UR candidates who got 120.5 marks can be posted in an available vacancy. Therefore, the O.A. is allowed as under.

¶62

Annexure A-8 dated 06.03.2012 is quashed. The respondents Nos.1 to 3 are directed to consider the applicant for appointment to the cadre of Postman against the vacancies available in 2009 based on his marks in the examination conducted as per Annexure A-1 and grant him appointment with all consequential benefits, excluding arrears to pay and allowances upto the date of joining as Postman, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.”

¶63

Being aggrieved by Anx. A-1 verdict of the Tribunal, the respondents therein had taken up the matter before this Court by filing OP(CAT) No.1729/2013. The Division Bench of this Court has rendered Anx.A-2 judgment dated 2.7.2013 whereby OP(CAT) No.1729/2013 was disposed. A reading of Anx.A-2 judgment would also indicate that this Court also has concurred with the findings of the Tribunal that the original applicant is entitled to succeed on both the grounds. One that, OBC reservation is illegal and ultra vires as regards the present method of appointment of serving GDS to the post Postman and also on the ground that remaining

¶64

O.P.(CAT) No. 155 of 2020

¶65

..9..

¶66

vacancies were unfilled for the selection year at the relevant time. The Division Bench of this Court has also upheld the order of the Tribunal in having granted relief to the original applicant only on the basis of second ground viz, the appointed OBC candidate who was having lesser marks than the original applicant need not be disturbed, and that the original applicant need to be accommodated only in one such unfilled vacancy for the selection year concerned. Thus, a reading of Anx.A-1 final order of the Tribunal and Anx.A-2 judgment of the Division Bench of this Court would make it clear like the daylight that though the original applicant had succeeded on both the grounds, he was actually granted relief only on the second ground inasmuch as, it was explicitly ordered that the appointed OBC candidate who had lesser marks than the original applicant in the LDCE shall not be disturbed and that the original applicant has to be accommodated only in one such unfilled vacancy out of the 12 notified vacancies for the selection year 2009. Further it is also common ground that the competent authority of the Postal Department, more particularly the 3^rd respondent herein has thereafter issued Anx.A-3 order dated 31.3.2014 appointing the petitioner to the

¶67

O.P.(CAT) No. 155 of 2020

¶68

..10..

¶69

post of Postman in one such unfilled vacancy in compliance with the directions and orders passed by the Tribunal at Anx.A-1, as confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court as per Anx.A-2 judgment. However, in para 3 of Anx.A-3 there is a rider that the the abovesaid selection and appointment of the original applicant will be provisional and will be subject to the outcome of the Special Leave Petition (SLP) proposed to be filed by the Department before the Apex Court. Thereafter, it appears that the respondents herein had preferred Civil Appeal before the Apex Court as can be seen from Anx.A-6 series. It is also common ground that in the meanwhile, in yet another case the Apex Court had rendered final verdict in a matter holding that the said process of appointment of serving GDS to the post of Postman has to be construed only as a direct recruitment, and not as a method of appointment like promotion, etc and that therefore OBC reservation is legally permissible as per the policy of reservation and recruitment of the competent authorities concerned. It appears that the Apex Court has passed its judgment in the Civil Appeal filed by the Department as against Anxs.A-1 & A-3 orders by holding that the matter in issue is covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.

¶70

..11..

¶71

O.P.(CAT) No. 155 of 2020

¶72

90/2015 [ Y.Najithamol & Ors. v. Soumya S.D. & Ors. ] and therefore the Civil Appeal preferred by the Department in the instant case as against Anxs.A-1 & A-3 orders passed in favour of the original applicant will stand allowed in terms of said judgment. The final order in that regard is available at Ext.P-8 dated 5.2.2020. { See page 123 of the paper book of this OP(CAT)}

¶73

Further it appears that the 3^rd respondent Superintendent of Post Offices, Pathanamthitta division has issued the impugned Anx.A-4 show cause notice/memo dated 26.3.2018 directing the petitioner to show cause as to why the appointment granted to him as per Anx.A-3 dated 31.3.2014 in pursuance of Anxs.A-1 & A-2 shall not be cancelled, on account of the judgment of the Apex Court in the abovesaid civil appeal. The petitioner has challenged Anx.A-4 show cause notice by filing the instant Ext.P-2 Original Application O.A.No.470/2018 before the CAT, Ernakulam, which was dismissed by the Tribunal as per the impugned Ext.P-1 final order dated 19.8.2020.

¶74

Though the impugned order at Anx.A-4 is a show cause notice, the Tribunal has rendered the verdict on merits, holding that all the notified vacancies for the selection year 2009 have been

¶75

..12..

¶76

O.P.(CAT) No. 155 of 2020

¶77

filled up and that the claim of the petitioner for appointment as Postman is not tenable and therefore the O.A. stands dismissed.

¶78

After hearing both sides we are of the firm view that though the original applicant has filed the above O.A, the challenge therein was limited only to Anx.A-4 show cause notice. In such a case, ordinarily the Tribunal should not have entered into the merits of the controversy and could have relegated the party to approach the authority concerned by giving his explanation which could have been directly considered by the competent authority in accordance with law, so as to finalize the proposal in the impugned Anx.A-4 show cause notice in accordance with law.

¶79

An order of adjudication of merits and rendering of final order as in Ext.P-1 will lead to the situation that even the vesting of discretion that may be otherwise available with the competent authority like the one among the respondents while finalizing Anx.A-4 show cause notice in accordance with law, may disappear altogether. A low paid employee like the original applicant out of his anxiety and previous litigative efforts would have thought in fit to litigate this matter by seeking quashment of impugned Anx.A-4 show cause notice. But, in the facts and

¶80

O.P.(CAT) No. 155 of 2020

¶81

..13..

¶82

circumstances of the case we are of the firm view that the Tribunal should not have entered into the merits of the controversy and should have directed the respondent to consider the response of the original applicant to the matter proposed in Anx.A-4 show cause notice, as the said proposal is to be construed only as provisional, since in essence and substance it is only a show cause notice.

¶83

That apart, after going through the pleadings and materials on record we see that some of the fact findings made by the Tribunal in the impugned Ext.P-1 order as if all the vacancies were filled up for the selection year 2009 at that point of time, etc appears to be erroneous. The abovesaid finding has been rendered by the Tribunal predominantly on the basis of the materials given by the respondents, more particularly the written submissions filed on behalf of the respondents in the O.A. { See page 124 to 127 of the paper book of this OP(CAT)}. From the pleadings and materials on record it appears that out of the 12 notified vacancies, 7 vacancies were filled up on the basis of merit in the UR quota and the 8^th vacancy was utilized by appointment from candidate in the OBC reservered quota, and 2 vacancies were filled up in the seniority in service quota. Thus, it appears that at the relevant time,

¶84

O.P.(CAT) No. 155 of 2020

¶85

..14..

¶86

2 vacancies out of the 12 vacancies viz, 1 vacancy set apart in the sports quota and another vacancy set apart in the PH quota were not then filled up for the selection year 2009 due to lack of eligible candidates available in those quotas from amongst the serving GDS candidates. The abovesaid factual aspect is also crystal clear from a mere reading of the previous round of litigations which has resulted in Anx.A-1 final order of the Tribunal and Anx.A-2 judgment of the Division Bench of this Court. Therefore, 2 vacancies or at least 1 vacancy out of the 12 vacancies were then not filled up at the relevant time for the selection year 2009 due to lack of eligible candidates, and a reading of Anxs.A-1 & A-2 would make it clear like the daylight that though the original applicant has raised two distinct grounds and has succeeded in both the grounds, the relief that was actually granted to him by the Tribunal as affirmed by this Court at Anx.A-2 was only on the second ground as it was specifically directed that the affected OBC candidate shall not be disturbed though she had secured lower marks than the original applicant in the LDCE,and that the petitioner should be appointed and accommodated in one of the two unfilled vacancies which were available at that time. This

¶87

O.P.(CAT) No. 155 of 2020

¶88

..15..

¶89

aspect of the matter has been reiterated by the Division Bench of this Court at Anx.A-2. A reading of Anx.A-3 appointment order dated 31.3.2014 would also make it clear that the petitioner was appointed only in one such unfilled vacancy for the selection year 2009 and the affected OBC candidate who had secured lower marks than the petitioner was not in any manner disturbed and her appointment was not cancelled, though the petitioner had succeeded in the first ground as well. A reading of the judgment dated 5.2.2020 in the Civil Appeal involved in this case given at Ext.P-8 { See page 123 of the paper book of this OP(CAT)} would also make it clear that the Apex Court has mainly dealt with only the first ground regarding the issue as to whether the method of appointment of serving GDS to the post of Postman is by way of direct recruitment or otherwise, and the second ground which is clearly a factual ground regarding appointment of the petitioner to one such unfilled vacancy has not been considered therein at all. This we are so saying as it appears that the contra findings of the Tribunal in Ext.P-1 order as if all the 12 vacancies were filled up at the relevant time for the selection year 2009 etc appears to be against the facts settled after due adjudication and which has

¶90

O.P.(CAT) No. 155 of 2020

¶91

..16..

¶92

resulted in Anxs.A-1 & A-2.

¶93

Further, after hearing both sides we are apprised that the Tribunal and this Court have issued series of orders and judgments in relation to selection and appointment to low paid post like GDS/Postman in the Postal Department where the personnel is selected wrongly and the wrong selection has been made not on account of any fault of the applicant, but on account of the fault or mistakes in the selection process, then, many a time, out of equitable and other legal considerations, the Tribunal and this Court has ordered that such a personnel in such low paid post like GDS/Postman etc may not be disturbed notwithstanding the fact that the initial selection may have been made out of mistake etc. The matter in this regard has been elaborately considered in a recent judgment of the Division Bench of this Court rendered on 14.1.2021 in OP(CAT) No. 112/2020, wherein this Court has considered a series of orders and judgments of the Tribunal and this Court in such similar situations, and wherein it was apprised to this Court that one of those cases referred to therein the Department has challenged the same either by filing review application before the Tribunal or by filing original petition before

¶94

..17..

¶95

O.P.(CAT) No. 155 of 2020

¶96

this Court, etc. A reading of para 4 of the said judgment in OP(CAT) No. 112/2020 (arising out of O.A. No. 1153/2014 of CAT, Ernakulam Bench) would indicate that one such order dated 7.8.2013 rendered in O.A. No. 1082/2012 by the CAT, Ernakulam Bench, as well as the final order dated 4.8.2015 in O.A. No. 755/2012 and connected cases as well as various final orders passed by the Tribunal in various other O.A.s on which reliance has been placed by the Tribunal in the above referred order in O.A. No. 755/2012 , and such similar orders passed which are referred to in the order dated 28.9.2018 of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1153/2014 as well as O.A. Nos. 182/2011, 576/2012 & 755/2012 etc.

¶97

The gist of abovesaid directions and orders passed by the Tribunal as confirmed by this Court is to the effect that where the appointment and selection is one involved low paid post of GDS/Postman etc and where an incumbent is appointed in said post and ultimately after adjudication is found that the personnel was selected on the basis of wrong selection procedure etc, but not on account of any fraud or fault committed by him, then there is certainly a vestige of power conferred with the Tribunal as well as this Court in exercise of the plenary powers under Article 226 of

¶98

..18..

¶99

O.P.(CAT) No. 155 of 2020

¶100

the Constitution of India to order out of equitable considerations that such an incumbent holding such a low paid position may not be disturbed despite the finding regarding the wrong selection so long as there are vacancies to accommodate the candidate concerned. It has also been clarified by this Court in the abovesaid judgment in OP(CAT) No. 112/2020 and other cases that the said approach is only on the basis of vestige of discretion exercised that may be considered in such extenuating circumstances relating to selection and appointment to low paid post like GDS/Postman and cannot be used as a matter of general application in respect of selection and appointment to other posts, etc.

¶101

It appears that in view of the specific directions issued by the Tribunal and this Court as per Anxs.A-1 & A-2, the original applicant was in fact appointed to one of the then available vacancies in the post of Postman and not by disturbing the OBC candidate concerned. The applicant has been appointed as per Anx.A-3 as early as on 31.3.2014. Now about 7 long years have elapsed thereafter. Therefore, prima facie we would observe that this would be a fit case where the respondent authorities concerned

¶102

O.P.(CAT) No. 155 of 2020

¶103

..19..

¶104

may consider all relevant aspects of the matter and may consider that the appointment given to the applicant as per Anx.A-3 as early as on 31.3.2014 may not be disturbed primarily on account of the fact that the indisputable position that the petitioner was granted relief not on the first ground, but on the latter ground in view of availability of vacancies, and also taking into account the vestige of discretion that may be available in such cases and also taking into account the fact that the feeder category involved in this case is one of GDS and the post which the petitioner has been appointed is the one of Postman, and both the posts are low paid positions and therefore the issue as to whether at this distance of time the appointment given to the applicant as per Anx.A-3 granted as early as on 31.3.2014 may not be disturbed, should be proactively considered by the competent authority among the respondents.

¶105

Since, these aspects of the matter have not been properly and effectively taken into consideration by the Tribunal and since the Tribunal has entered into the merits of the controversy and has given a verdict though the impugned order is only at show cause stage, we feel that the said verdict of the Tribunal will stand in the way of independent consideration by the

¶106

O.P.(CAT) No. 155 of 2020

¶107

..20..

¶108

competent authority among the respondents on those vital aspects, so that the matter in the impugned Anx.A-4 show cause notice could be finalized in accordance with law by taking into consideration all relevant aspects of the matter including those mentioned as hereinabove. In that view of the matter it is ordered that the impugned Ext.P-1 final order dated 19.8.2020 rendered by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, in O.A. No. 470/2018 will stand set aside. Though, Anx.A-4 show cause notice has been issued by the 3^rd respondent, we feel that the abovesaid aspects may require consideration at higher level and hence we order that the matter in relation to the impugned Anx.A-4 show cause notice may be decided in accordance with law by the 2^nd respondent Chief Post Master General, Kerala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner will immediately give his written explanation/defence to the matter proposed in Anx.A-4 show cause notice without any further delay at any rate within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, and the said explanation should be duly send by the petitioner within the said time limit along with a certified copy of this judgment. The 2^nd respondent Chief Post Master General will

¶109

O.P.(CAT) No. 155 of 2020

¶110

..21..

¶111

thereafter afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, either in person or through his authorised representative/counsel of his choice, and then may pass final orders in the matters in respect of Anx.A-4 show cause notice by taking into consideration all relevant aspects of the matter including those aspects mentioned hereinabove, without much delay preferably within a period of 3 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. Such decision may be rendered by the 2^nd respondent untrammeled and uninfluenced in any manner by the impugned Ext.P-1 final order rendered by the Tribunal in this case, as the same has already been set aside by this Court in this proceedings.

¶112

We hope and trust that the 2^nd respondent would exercise discretion while taking into consideration all relevant aspects of the matter including by compassionate approach that may be required in a hard case like this, and more particularly taking into account the crucial and relevant fact that the petitioner was infact appointed to one of the available unfilled vacancies for the selection year in question, without disturbing the affected OBC candidate.

¶113

O.P.(CAT) No. 155 of 2020

¶114

..22..

¶115

With these observations and directions, the above Original Petition (CAT) will stand finally disposed of.

¶116

Sd/-

¶117

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

Sd/-

K.BABU, JUDGE

MMG

O.P.(CAT) No. 155 of 2020

¶122

..23..

¶123

APPENDIX

¶124

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶125

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER DATED 19.8.2020 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH IN OA NO.470/2018 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION ON 470/2018 ALONG WITH ANNEXURES OF THE HONOURABLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ANNEXURE A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NO.CAT/OA/GEN/2017 DATED 26.3.2018 ANNEXURE A1 A TRUE COPY OF FINAL ORDER DATED 1.1.2013 IN OA 245/2012 OF THIS HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL ANNEXURE A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 2.7.2013 IN OP(CAT) NO.1729/2013 OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NO.B3/27/EXAM/2009/III DATED 31.3.2014 ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 31.3.2018 ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.CAT/OA/GEN/2016 DATED 26.4.2018 ALONG WITH IT ENCLOSURE ANNEXURE A7 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 10.5.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS ALONG WITH ANNEXURES

¶126

O.P.(CAT) No. 155 of 2020

¶127

..24..

¶128

ANNEXURE R1	TRUE COPY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF POSTS
	(POSTMAN, VILLAGE POSTMAN AND MAIL GUARD RECRUITMENT AMENDMENT RULES,1994)
ANNEXURE R2	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.08.2016
EXHIBIT P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY RESPONDENTS
ANNEXURE R3	TRUE COPY OF THE CASE STATUS OF SLP CIVIL APPEAL NO.144/2018
ANNEXURE R4	TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 01.06.2018
ANNEXURE R5	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.07.2018 OF HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL
EXHIBIT P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY APPLICANT
ANNEXURE A8	A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 14.01.2019 IN MA 2349/2018 IN CA 144/2018
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICANT 273/2020 IN OA 470/2018 SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT
ANNEXURE MA1	TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT DATED 10.01.2018
ANNEXURE MA2	TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL IN OA NO.470/2018 DATED 01.06.2018
ANNEXURE MA3	TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL IN OA 470/2018 DATED 10.07.2018
ANNEXURE MA4	TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THE
	HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT DATED 05.02.2020

¶129

O.P.(CAT) No. 155 of 2020

¶130

..25..

¶131

EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE
	SUBMITTED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION MA 400/2020 IN OA 470/2018
ANNEXURE MA1	TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT DATED 10.01.2018
ANNEXURE MA2	TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL DATED 01.06.2018
ANNEXURE MA3	TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL DATED 10.06.2018
ANNEXURE MA4	TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT DATED 05.02.2020
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE SUBMITTED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF LIST OF VACANT POSTMEN POSTS IN PATHANAMTHITTA DIVISION AS ON 20.10.2020.
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF THE RTI APPLICATION DATED 23.10.2020
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY VIDE LETTER NO.CCC/RTI/184/2020 DATED 25/11/2020 ISSUED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA DIVISION
ANNEXURE R3(A)	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
	05.02.2020 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.144 OF 2018 OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.

V.K.Somarajan Pillai v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.K.Somarajan Pillai v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Kerala Vs S.Janardanan

The District Officer Vs Deepthi

Keya Foods International Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

Kerala State Bamboo Corporation, Vs P.M.Kunjumuhammed

A.Mohammed Vs the Administrator, Administration of the Union Territory of Lakshadweep

State of Kerala Vs Prabodu Kumar .K.P