P PRAHLADAN Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant was recruited under Sports quota and was posted as Extra Departmental Messenger, Medical College Post Office, Alappuzha. In the Select List published by A-2 memo dated 18.1.96 the applicant was at Sl. No. 3. He was allotted to Alappuzha division by A-2 letter and later re-allotted to Alappuzha Sub Division by A-3 letter date 22.1.96. Accordingly he was appointed as E.D. Messenger, Alappuzha-5 w.e.f. 5.3.96 as per A-4 memo dated 26.3.96. THE applicant assumed charge as E.D. Messenger on 29.1.96 and continued in the post till the post was abolished in January, 1998. On abolition of the post he was appointed as Extra Departmental Delivery Agent. Avalookunnu Sub Office on 27.1.98 where he was continuing even at the time of filing of this O.A. THE applicant claimed that he was selected for appointment as E.D. Agent for eventually absorbing him under Group-C under 5% vacancies set apart for Sports quota. THE applicant stated that the Kerala Postal Sports Board decided to call for applications from meritorious sportsmen of Foot ball, Volley ball and Kabaddi for eventually absorbing in Group-C and D posts under the Department of Posts in terms of Govt. of India, Department of Personnel and AR O.M. dated 4.8.80 and Department of Personnel and Training O.M. dated 21.3.91 (Annexure A-5).THE first respondent by A-9 memo dated 6.1.98 called for information from the applicant, 5th respondent and two other E.D. Agents regarding their performance in the AH India Postal Meets/Nationals. According to the applicant the 5th respondent was recruited outside the Sports Quota and she having no preferential certificates indicated in A-8 dated 4.5.95 was not eligible to be considered for regular appointment to Group-C or D against vacancies set apart for Sport quota and in relaxation of the respective Recruitment Rules. However, pursuant to the Director General of Posts letter dated 19.6.95 the Circle Relaxation Committee by A-10 memo dated 29.2.2000 approved the appointment of 3 E.D. Agents including the 5th respondent as Postman and the applicant and another E.D. Agent for appointment as Group-D. THE applicant was directed to produce his original documents, etc., for appointment against Group-D Cadre before the 1 st respondent as per A-11 letter dated 7.3,2000. THE applicant filed A-12 representation to the second respondent and the first respondent. Meanwhile the applicant was served with A-13 memo dated 14.3.2000 allotting him to the Alappuzha Sub Division Unit for appointment to the Cadre of Group-D in the existing vacancy. He was served with A-14 letter dated 27.3.2000 rejecting his A-12 representation. According to the applicant the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in approving the appointment of the 5th respondent to the cadre of Postman overlooking the superior claim of the applicant was manifestly illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and was violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India. He claimed that he completely satisfied the educational qualification for appointment to the cadre of Postman and he had a preferential right for appointment. According to him the vacancy of Postman had been wrongly allotted to the 5th respondent and the reply given to the applicant that there was no vacancy of Postman under Sports Quota was illegal and arbitrary. He sought the following reliefs through this O.A.:

(2.) Respondents 1 to 4 filled reply statement resisting the claim of the applicant. They submitted that in the process of selection though the applicant and the 5th respondent were having the same educational qualifications, the 5th respondent was considered for the post of Postman after considering her excellence in sports after her appointment as E.D. Agent. In the case of the applicant his achievements after his appointment as E.D. Agent were not upto the mark as he could come out successful only in one event and in all other events he had only participated without any achievements. Further, as there were only 3 vacancies of Postman against 5 candidates the best 3 candidates including the 5th respondent were selected for the post of Postman and the remaining two including the applicant were selected to the post of Group-D. They further submitted that as per the extant orders Head of Circles were delegated with powers to make recruitment of eligible outstanding sports persons in Group-C and Group-D posts against direct recruitment quota and appointment of E.D. Agents who had represented Postal P & T Teams in the National Tournaments in Group-C and Group-D posts. This could be done only upto a maximum of 5% of vacancies under direct recruitment quota. Relaxation recruitment under sports quota was not aimed at the improvement of any class of Government servants but was intended for the promotion of sports activity in the department. As such in the matter of promotion excellence in performance in sports was the criterion and not the fact that an E.D. Agent belonged to sports quota or an outsider. The extent orders did not provide for any special preference or consideration to be shown to an E.D. Agent recruited under sports quota over another E.D. Agent recruited in the normal course while considering their case for promotion under relaxed norms. The applicant herein had no preferential superior right over the 5th respondent for appointment to the cadre of Postman instead of Group-D and and the O. A. was liable to be dismissed.

(3.) APPLICANT filed rejoinder. He submitted that the reply statement filed by the first respondent on behalf of the respondents 2 to 4 could not be accepted and was liable to be ignored for non-compliance of the CAT Procedure Rules 1987 which mandated that the documents referred to in Sub-rule (2) should also be filed along with the reply. As the Govt., of India (Authorisation of officers for verification of pleadings and other documents to be filed in the CAT) Rules, 1993, notified by Govt. of India. Department of Personnel and Training on 28.9.93 published in the Gazette of India on the same date, authorised only Group-A Officer in any Ministry/Department of the Govt. of India or Group-A Officer in any non-Secretariat office of the Govt. of India to sign all pleadings and other documents to be filed for and on behalf of the Union of India before the Tribunal and as the reply statement in this O. A. had been filed by the Superintendent of Post Offices. Alappuzha who was a Group-B Officer and no authorisation in writing had been produced along with the reply statement showing that he was duly authorised by the other respondents including Union of India to file the reply statement on their behalf, the reply statement was liable to be rejected. According to the applicant the statement that there were no vacancies of Postman that could be earmarked under sports quota within the prescribed limit of 5% in the circle was prima facie untrue and was hence denied. It was submitted that as per A-10 the 5th respondent was approved by the Circle Relaxation Committee for appointment to the post of Postman in Alappuzha Division along with two others in Kottayam and Palakkad divisions. Therefore, the contention that there were no vacancies of Postman in Alappuzha division under sports quota for the year 2000 as well as under outsider quota was opposed to facts and hence denied.