THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION Nos. 14797 and 14937 of 2010 Dated: 21-7-2010 Between: The Union of India, rep. by the Director General, Dept. of Posts, Ministry of Communications and IT, Dak Bhavan, New Delhi and others …Petitioners and K.R.Ramanjaneyulu and another …Respondents COMMON ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) These two writ petitions are directed against the common order dated 1-5-2009 of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in O.A.Nos. 415 and 659 of 2008 respectively, whereby the applications are disposed of directing the petitioners herein to identify the vacancies of postman/group ‘D’ vacancies available towards 25% seniority quota and to conduct separate DPCs for each year’s vacancies reckoning the eligibility criteria as on the date on which the vacancies arose and to consider the case of the respective applicants accordingly and further directing that in the event of selection of the applicants (the respondents herein), their appointments shall be reckoned for pension purposes from the date of the vacancy for which the applicants were selected The applicant in O.A.No. 415 of 2008 is one K.R.Ramanjaneyulu and the applicant in O.A.No. 659 of 2008 Sri D.Baburao. Ramanjaneyulu was appointed as a Grameena Dak Sevak (GDS) on 6-2-1977 as a general candidate. His date of birth is 15-7-1958. Babu Rao is a Scheduled Caste category candidate and was appointed as GDS on 1-5-1976 and his date of birth is 15-7-1956. 25% of the vacancies in the category of postman or in group ‘D’ are to be filled up on the basis of seniority, from GDS employees. There is also an age limit of 50 years for general candidates and 55 years for Scheduled Caste community candidates. The eligibility age for Ramanjaneyulu is therefore 50 years and for Baburao 55 years. Baburao is senior to Ramanjaneyulu. Vacancies in postman category arose in the year 2003-04 and in a DPC held in the year 2006 one eligible candidate was selected. Another vacancy arose in 2005. The DPC was however held in 2007 to consider for a general vacancy. The petitioners herein assumed error that though Baburao is senior and a Scheduled Caste candidate, since the vacancy was an unreserved vacancy, Baburao could be considered only if he was within 50 years of age. The petitioners also assumed that since the DPC met in 2007 and the relevant date for eligibility including age was the 1st of July of the year in which a DPC is held (vide the Department of Posts (Postman/Village Postman/Mail guard) Recruitment Rules, 1989, as amended by the Amendment Rules 1994, in GSR 86 dated 30-1-1995), and since Baburao had crossed 50 years by 1-7-2007 (the year in which the DPC was conducted in respect of a vacancy that had arisen in the year 2005) he was not qualified to be considered though he was a Scheduled Caste candidate and was entitled to be considered till he completes the age of 55. Insofar as Ramanjaneyulu is concerned, the record does not show whether any vacancies had arisen subsequent to 2005. The Tribunal declared that as vacancies had arisen in the year 2005 though the DPC met in the year 2007, eligibility as on the date of arisal of the vacancy should be considered and so considered Baburao was eligible even though the DPC was held in 2007. This reasoning of the Tribunal is impeccable and warrants no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. It must however be noticed that the Tribunal committed an error in assuming that Baburao’s eligibility, in terms of age for seeking appointment to an unreserved vacancy in the post of postman or group ‘D’ post, is until he completes 50 years. This assumption of the Tribunal as reflected in para 8 of its order is fallacious. Under the existing and operative legal regime, persons belonging to Scheduled Caste are provided a plurality of affirmative benefits. One of them is that a Scheduled Caste GDS candidate is entitled to seek appointment as postman or to a group ‘D’ post until he completes the age of 55 years as against 50 years for a general candidate. This benefit is available to all holders of GDS posts who belong to a Scheduled Caste community and this entitlement is not to be jettisoned when the vacancy notified is an unreserved vacancy. The philosophy behind the grant of such age relaxation benefit to a member of the Scheduled Caste is that the reserved category candidates require additional time to compete for appointment to public services vis-a-vis persons not suffering similar historic, cultural and economical deprivation as Scheduled Castes do. Since it is a settled principle that an unreserved vacancy is a vacancy to which a person belonging to the Scheduled Castes could also compete, the mere fact that the vacancy is an unreserved vacancy does not require that a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste when considered for such vacancy, must be within the same age restriction as a general candidate. Insofar as Ramanjaneyulu is concerned i.e., O.A.No. 415 of 2008, as there was no data available whether a vacancy arose after 2005, the Tribunal declared that Ramanjaneyulu was eligible to be considered for vacancies arising upto 2005 irrespective when the DPC is held for filling up such vacancies, since Ramanjaneyulu is an O.C. candidate and would complete the age of 50 years only in 2008. The reasoning and consequent direction by the Tribunal is unassailable and warrants no interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. For the aforesaid reasons and on the aforesaid analysis, the writ petitions are dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J _________________________ R. KANTHA RAO, J 21st July, 2010. GRR