The Superintendent Of Post Offices vs Hanuman Giri

2. The appellants herein are assailing the order dated 19.07.2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ A.No.9549/2011. By the said order the High Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants herein. The Review filed by the appellants was Digitally signed by MADHU BALA also dismissed through the subsequent order dated Date: 2019.08.06 17:23:36 IST Reason:

Pursuant to such Notification, the Chief Post Master General, U.P. Circle at Lucknow issued an order dated 27.07.1992 informing the Director, Postal Services, Page 2 of 15 Kanpur that the examination held on 18.08.1991 in Banda, Fatehpur and Fatehgarh Division be cancelled. Though the respondent herein did not assail the same, certain other Delivery Agents including one Shri Jagmohan Yadav, in all five applicants, challenged the said order dated 27.06.1992 cancelling the examination held for promotion, by approaching the CAT in O.A. No.546/1992. The said O.A.No.546/1992 was disposed of on 05.02.1997 wherein the CAT set aside the direction issued by the Chief Post Master General dated 27.07.1992 and directed to publish the result of all successful candidates to be promoted against 17 vacancies available in Kanpur Head Post Offices as per Rules. The Review Application bearing No.33/1997 filed by the appellants herein was dismissed through the order dated 31.07.2000. Since the order of CAT had not been complied with, the said Shri Jagmohan Yadav and four others filed Contempt Application bearing No.135/2002 before the CAT. The non­consideration of the Contempt Application in an appropriate manner by the CAT had led to the filing of the Civil Misc.Writ Petition No.12990/2004 Page 3 of 15 before the High Court, by the said Shri Jagmohan Yadav and others. The said Writ Petition was allowed and the matter was remitted to the CAT for consideration afresh and in the said process the said Shri Jagmohan Yadav was promoted as a Postman.

5. The genesis of the case being such, the respondent herein also having appeared in the examination held on 18.08.1991 sought to take the benefit of the direction issued by the CAT in O.A.No.546/1992 though he was not a party therein. Accordingly he filed a representation dated 02.07.2007 and claimed for promotion as a Postman. The appellants herein did not consider the same favourably but intimated him that he was not an applicant in O.A.No.546/1992 and in that view the result in the examination held for promotion was not declared. The respondent, however, sought and obtained details of his result through an application made under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and on learning that he had obtained 127.5 marks, at the outset was of the impression that the said Shri Jagmohan Yadav who had Page 4 of 15 been promoted was less meritorious though in fact he had secured 137 marks out of 150 marks. It was further the case of the respondent that through the said marks since he was placed at Serial No.12 in the merit list and there were 17 vacancies in Kanpur Head Post Office he was entitled. Hence he sought for promotion as Postman since according to him his rank in the merit list was within the number of vacancies. The said claim of the respondent herein was repudiated by the appellants herein which resulted in respondent herein approaching the CAT in O.A. No.888/2009.

6. In the said proceedings the appellants herein opposed the claim of respondent herein. The CAT by adverting to the rival contentions, through its order dated 05.10.2010, took note of the scope of the order passed in O.A.No.546/1992 (relating to Shri Jagmohan Yadav and others) based on which the respondent herein was making a claim. Since the claim of respondent herein had been declined by the appellants on the ground that he was not the applicant in O.A.No.546/1992, the CAT by Page 5 of 15 order dated 05.02.1997 had held that the order dated 27.07.1992 passed by the Chief Post Master General, U.P. Circle for cancellation of the examination held in Banda, Fatehpur and Fathegarh Division had been quashed in its entirety. Hence, in that case since the appellants herein were directed to declare the result of the examination and give appointment to the successful candidates, the CAT was of the opinion that the results of all candidates who appeared for the examination including that of the respondent herein ought to have been announced and the promotions as Postman to the 17 vacancies in Kanpur Head Post Offices was required to be made. In that view, on noticing that the same had not been done by the appellant, the CAT directed consideration of the case of the respondent herein. The Review filed by the appellants herein against such order was also dismissed. It is also to be noted that one of the reasons which was also taken into consideration by the CAT to accept the claim of the respondent herein was that he claimed to have secured more marks than Shri Page 6 of 15 Jagmohan Yadav who had secured the promotion in the very same process that was undertaken.

7. The High Court while taking note of the contentions put forth in the writ petition has adverted to the very nature of the consideration made by the CAT as taken note hereinabove and has approved the order passed by the CAT. The Review Petition filed by the appellants herein though was dismissed, one aspect of the matter which got highlighted and clarified therein is that the claim as put forth by the respondent that he was more meritorious than Shri Jagmohan Yadav was not the correct position inasmuch as the said Shri Jagamohan Yadav had obtained 137 marks as against 127.5 marks obtained by the respondent herein. However, the High Court was of the opinion that even if that be the position, the basic consideration as made by the CAT and taken note by it in its order does not get altered. In that view the point that would remain for consideration herein is, as to whether the claim of the respondent herein that he was entitled to be promoted as Page 7 of 15 he was at Serial No.12 in the merit list and as such he would be one among the Delivery Agents to be promoted against the vacancy of 17 posts of Postman is sustainable ?

13. If that be the position, the orders impugned herein are not sustainable. Therefore, the order dated 17.01.2011 passed in O.A.No.888/2009 and the order dated 17.01.2011 passed in Review Application No.77/2010 by the CAT as also the order dated 19.07.2013 passed in Writ Appeal No.9549/2011 and the order dated 21.08.2017 passed in Review Petition No.285160/2013 by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad are set aside.

14. Accordingly, the instant appeals are allowed with no order as to costs. All pending applications also stand disposed of.