IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.17731 OF 2010 SONU S/O SRI RAM BHARAT PRASAD VILL.- SHIV NAGAR NAWADA, P.O.- NAWADA, DISTT.- NAWADA …. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY CUM D.G. DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, DAK BHAWAN, NEW DELHI 2. THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL, BIHAR CIRCLE, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR OF POSTAL SERVICES, O/O THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL, PATNA 4. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, RECRUITMENT O/O THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL, BIHAR CIRCLE, PATNA 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, NAWADA DIVISION, NAWADA 6. THE SR. SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, GAYA DIVISION, GAYA 7. THE SR. SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, PATNA DIVISION, PATNA …. RESPONDENTS ------ For Petitioner : M/s Amit Shrivastava & H.K.Karn Advocates For Respondents: M/s Raghib Ahsan, Sr Advocate, ASG Nadim Seraj,CGC & R.K.Singh, CGC ------ WITH CWJC No.17825 of 2010 1. NAGENDRA KUMAR S/O SRI KAPILESHWAR KUMAR R/O VILL.- MALIKAMA, P.O.- MASAURHI, DISTT.- PATNA 2. SHIV KUMAR S/O SHANKAR PRASAD GUPTA R/O MOHALLA- HOSPITAL ROAD, BARTANMANDI MASUURHI, DISTT.- PATNA 3. SUJIT KUMAR SUMAN S/O SRI RAJDEO PRASAD R/O VILL.- GOPALPUR, P.O.- NADAUL, P.S.- MASAURHI, DISTT.- PATNA… PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY CUM D.G. DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, - 2 - DAK BHAWAN, NEW DELHI 2. THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL, BIHAR CIRCLE, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR OF POSTA SERVICES O/O THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL, PATNA 4. THE POSTMASTER GENERAL, NORTHERN REGION, MUZAFFARPUR …. RESPONDENTS ------- For Petitioners : M/s Gautam Bose, Sr. Advocate & H.K. Karn, Advocate For Respondents: M/s Raghib Ahsan, Sr Advocate, ASG Nadim Seraj,CGC & R.K.Singh, CGC -------- WITH CWJC No.19022 of 2010 1. AMIT KUMAR SON OF SRI ARJUN SINGH, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA- GARHPAR NARDIGANJ ROAD, PS NAWADA, DISTRICT NAWADA 2. RAVI KUMAR S/O SRI RAMESHWAR RAVIDAS, VILLAGE & PO BAZIDPUR, DISTRICT NAWADA 3. NIRAJ KUMAR S/O SRI RAVINDRA SHARMA, DISTRICT NAWADA 4. MAMTA KUMARI MINAKSI D/O SRI LALAN PRASAD, DISTRICT NAWADA …. PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY CUM D.G. DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, DAK BHAWAN, NEW DELHI 2. THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL, BIHAR CIRCLE, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR OF POSTAL SERVICES O/O THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL, PATNA 4. THE ASSTT. DIRECTOR RECRUITMENT O/O THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL, PATNA 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, NAWADA DIVISON, NAWADA 6. THE SR. SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, GAYA DIVISION, GAYA 7. THE SR. SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, PATNA DIVISON, PATNA …. RESPONDENTS -------- - 3 - For Petitioners : M/s Amit Shrivastava & H.K.Karn Advocates For Respondents: M/s Raghib Ahsan, Sr Advocate, ASG Nadim Seraj,CGC & R.K.Singh, CGC -------- WITH CWJC No.1825 of 2011 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY CUM D.G. DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, DAK BHAWAN, NEW DELHI 2. THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL, BIHAR CIRCLE, PATNA 3. DIRECTOR OF POSTAL SERVICES O/O THE POSTMASTER GENERAL, PATNA 4. POST MASTER GENERAL, NORTHERN REGION, MUZAFFARPUR …. PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. NAGENDRA KUMAR S/O SRI KAPILESHWAR KUMAR R/O VILL.- MALIKAMA, P.O.- MASAURHI, DISTT.- PATNA 2. SHIV KUMAR S/O SHANKAR PRASAD GUPTA R/O MOHALLA- HOSPITAL ROAD, BARTANMANDI MASUURHI, DISTT.- PATNA 3. SUJIT KUMAR SUMAN S/O SRI RAJDEO PRASAD R/O VILL.- GOPALPUR, P.O.- NADAUL, P.S. MASAURHI, DISTT. PATNA .. RESPONDENTS ------- For Petitioners : M/s Raghib Ahsan, Sr Advocate, ASC R.K.Singh, Nadim Seraj, Shiv Kumar, CGCs. For Respondents: M/s Gautam Bose, Sr. Advocate & H.K. Karn, Advocate --------- WITH CWJC No.2205 of 2011 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY CUM D.G. DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, DAK BHAWAN, NEW DELHI 2. THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL, BIHAR CIRCLE, PATNA 3.THE DIRECTOR OF POSTAL SERVICES O/O THE - 4 - CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL, PATNA 4. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, RECRUITMENT, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL, BIHAR CIRCLE, PATNA 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, NAWADA DIVISON, NAWADA 6. THE SR. SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, GAYA DIVISION, GAYA 7. THE SR. SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, PATNA DIVISON, PATNA …. PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. AMIT KUMAR SON OF SRI ARJUN SINGH, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA- GARHPAR NARDIGANJ ROAD, PS NAWADA, DISTRICT NAWADA 2. RAVI KUMAR S/O SRI RAMESHWAR RAVIDAS, VILLAGE & PO BAZIDPUR, DISTRICT NAWADA 3. NIRAJ KUMAR S/O SRI RAVINDRA SHARMA, DISTRICT NAWADA 4. MAMTA KUMARI MINAKSI D/O SRI LALAN PRASAD, DISTRICT NAWADA .. RESPONDENTS ------- For Petitioners : M/s Raghib Ahsan, Sr Advocate, ASC R.K.Singh, Nadim Seraj, Shiv Kumar, CGCs. For Respondents: M/s Amit Shrivastava & H.K.Karn, Advocates --------- WITH CWJC No.2279 of 2011 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY CUM D.G. DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, DAK BHAWAN, NEW DELHI 2. THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL, BIHAR CIRCLE, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR OF POSTAL SERVICE O/O CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL, PATNA 4. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, RECRUITMENT, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL, BIHAR CIRCLE, PATNA 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, NAWADA DIVISON, NAWADA 6. THE SR. SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, - 5 - 7 20.4.2011 GAYA DIVISION, GAYA 7. THE SR. SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, PATNA DIVISON, PATNA …. PETITIONERS VERSUS SONU S/O SRI RAM BHARAT PRASAD VILL.- SHIV NAGAR NAWADA, P.O.- NAWADA, DISTT.- NAWADA …. RESPONDENT --------- For Petitioners : M/s Raghib Ahsan, Sr Advocate, ASC R.K.Singh, Nadim Seraj, Shiv Kumar, CGCs. For Respondents: M/s Amit Shrivastava & H.K.Karn, Advocates ----------- Heard the parties. 2. By the impugned order dated 23.12.2009, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna has passed a common judgment in OA Nos. 267 of 2007, 239 of 2008 and 240 of 2008 and has not only held that the recruitment should have been done in centralized manner as required by the Rules for which centralized examination was held but has further held that the entire recruitment process needs to be set aside and accordingly, the appointments made on the basis of the recruitment process have also been cancelled. 3. The petitioners of CWJC No.17731, 17825 and 19022 of 2010 were the applicants in the three OAs. They have assailed the order of the Central - 6 - Administrative Tribunal in a limited manner that the Tribunal, after finding that the examination was held centrally which is the requirement of rules, should not have set aside the centralized examination and interview but should have only set aside the result i.e. final merit list and should have directed the authorities to prepare the final merit list in a centralized manner in accordance with provisions in Rule 13 of the Revised Recruitment Procedure for Postal Assistant/ Sorting Assistant issued on 10.11.2004. 4. The concerned departmental authorities along with the Union of India have also preferred three remaining writ petitions to challenge the same very impugned order of the Tribunal on the ground that the Tribunal should not have interfered with the selection process or the final merit list. 5. So far as the applicants of the three OAs are concerned, they have relied largely upon the discussions made in the impugned order and the findings given therein. Their stand is that the Tribunal did come to a correct conclusion in first part of paragraph 17 that “ though the examination was held centrally, the short- - 7 - listing which was a part of the recruitment process and was to be done in the centralized manner was not done in that manner.” However, it was further submitted that nobody raised any grievance against short listing done at the initial stage for holding written examination and, therefore, on that basis alone the Tribunal was not justified to hold that the entire recruitment process was invalid so as to set aside the entire recruitment process consisting of written examination, interview etc. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Union of India appearing in support of writ petitions preferred on behalf of the authorities placed reliance upon Rule 13 and Rule 18 and the advertisement to justify publication of final merit list division-wise. A copy of the advertisement is available in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents in CWJC No.17731 of 2010. The opening sentence of the advertisement is clear and categorical that in Bihar Postal Circle 60 posts of Postal Assistant, Sorting Assistant were vacant. The vacancies were not shown division- wise and the number of reserved seats were also on the basis of centralized vacancy of 60 posts. The newspaper - 8 - advertisement does not show that the vacancies are to be filled up division-wise. Only in clause 5 there is a provision that the applicants can apply only from any one division/ unit because the aptitude test for appointment will be held at circle level on the same date and time. This clause does not violate any of the Rules and does not disclose that the results will be prepared separately for each division. 7. Coming to the Rules, the authorities and the Union of India have placed emphasis upon Rules (13) and (18) of the Revised Recruitment procedure. Rule (13) relates to final merit list and it is fully in accordance with Rule (4) which provides that the process of recruitment will be done on centralized basis which is at circle level. There is nothing in Rule (13) to justify the stand of the authorities that results were required to be prepared division-wise. The other rule relied upon is Rule (18) which provides that in case a candidate applies from more than one division, the recruiting unit from where he would apply for the examination would be deemed to be the recruiting division and the applications submitted from other recruiting units will not be - 9 - considered. This is in accordance with clause 5 of the advertisement and does not permit filing of more than one application forms. However, these rules or for that matter, any of the rules in the Revised Recruitment Procedure of 2004, do not provide for preparing final merit list separately for different divisions so as to permit appointment of candidates who might have secured lesser mark in preference to candidates having secured more marks in the centralized examination. Rule (1) makes it abundantly clear that notification of vacancies is to be issued centrally by the circle in the local newspaper indicating various details including total vacancies to be filled up in the whole circle. Rule (4) provides for short listing of candidates on the basis of marks of 10+2 level to ensure that the candidates will be short listed to the extent of 10 times the number of vacancies. At the very stage of short-listing of candidates, the Rule 4(a) provides as follows : “The process of recruitment will be done on centralized basis.” If the argument of the Union of India and the authorities is accepted then this Rule should have provided that the examination will be done on centralized basis, result shall be prepared division- - 10 - wise and the process of recruitment will be decentralized. Thus, the stand of the authorities runs totally counter to the provisions in the rules. 8. Even otherwise, once a centralized examination has been held and the final merit list as provided in Rule (13) is required to be prepared, it cannot be on any other basis but strictly in accordance with marks obtained by the candidates in the centralized examination and interview. The final merit list cannot be broken into pieces in the name of separate division or unit so as to permit candidates securing lesser marks to get into the zone of selection and appointment in preference to those who have secured higher marks unless there is clear and specific provision for the same with sufficient justification. We do not find any such specific provision or justification to allow final merit list to be prepared otherwise than on centralized basis. 9. Before us two judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court were cited by the parties. One is in the case of Radhey Shyam Singh and Others v. Union of India & Others, AIR 1997 SC 1601 which has been discussed in paragraph 11 of the impugned judgment of the Tribunal - 11 - and the other is in the case of K.G.Ashok v. Kerala Public Service Commission, (2001) 5 SCC 419, discussed in paragraphs 18 and 19 of the impugned judgment. We find that the judgment in the case of Radhey Shyam Singh supports the case of the petitioners who were applicants before the Tribunal and the judgment in the case of K. G. Ashok was rendered in a different factual situation where the Public Service Commission had invited applications for district-wise selection for the concerned post of Zonal Inspector Scale II. In the present case, neither the applications invited are for division-wise selection nor rules of 2004 provide for divisional selection. 10. Thus, we have no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the final merit list which was required to be prepared in accordance with Rule (13) of 2004 guidelines in a centralized manner, has not been prepared as per the mandate of the rules and hence, the final merit list only required to be interfered with by the Tribunal. The entire selection process did not suffer from any material defect so as to invalidate the entire selection process after the examination was held. The candidates - 12 - who participated in the recruitment process even if they had made a prayer for setting aside the recruitment process in some of the OAs, they should not have been permitted to do so because they had voluntarily participated in the selection process. Only their grievance with regard to preparation of merit list division- wise needed to be addressed by the Tribunal. 11. The prayer made in the OAs might not have been very happily worded but the gist of the prayer was to interfere with the result or the final merit list prepared division- wise. In CWJC No.19022 of 2010 there are four petitioners. In respect of petitioner no.3 and 4, namely, Niraj Kumar and Mamta Kumari Minaksi, it has been submitted on behalf of the Union of India and its authorities that their original application forms in Form I was never received by the authorities but still they were allowed by the Tribunal by interim order to take the written examination but no final decision was given by the Tribunal in their cases because ultimately the Tribunal decided to set aside the entire recruitment process. Hence, a prayer has been made on behalf of the Union of India and authorities that if this Court decides - 13 - to interfere with the order of the Tribunal and direct only for recasting the final merit list in the centralized manner then specific decision should be given in respect of candidature of Niraj Kumar and Mamta Kumari Minaksi. On this issue, we face difficulty in giving a finding of fact as to whether these two petitioners have actually applied or not within the time permitted. Hence, in respect of petitioners no.3 and 4 of CWJC NO.19022 of 2010, the concerned authorities are given liberty to give them an opportunity to explain their case and if those petitioners will satisfy the concerned authorities that they had applied within the time, in that case appropriate decision will betaken in their favour. Otherwise, the authorities concerned may take appropriate decision in accordance with law. 12. In view of discussions made earlier, all the writ petitions are allowed in part and the impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal is modified to the extent that only the final merit list will stand set aside and not the entire recruitment process. The final merit list should be prepared centrally on the basis of marks obtained by the candidates in accordance with provisions - 14 - in Rule (13) of the 2004 Rules. Appointment process shall thereafter be completed to ensure that candidates securing higher marks are first given offer of appointment in comparison to those who secured lesser marks. This exercise of recasting the final merit list and making appointment should be completed as early as possible, preferably within two months from today. AFR sk (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Dr Ravi Ranjan, J. )