CENTRAL ADMINISTRATRIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BANGALORE
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.42/2010
DATED THIS THE DAY OF JUNE, 2010
HON'BLE SHRI B.VENKATESWARA RAO ...MEMBER(J)
HON'BLE SMT. LEENA MEHENDALE ...MEMBER(A)
Aged 23 years,
Kailancha Village & Post,
Ramnagaram – 571 511. ...Applicant
(By Advocate Shri B.Venkateshan)
1. Union of India,
Represented by the Secretary,
Dept. of Posts,
Dak Bhavan, New Delhi-110 001.
2. Postmaster General,
South Karnataka Region,
Bangalore – 560 001.
3. Superintendent of Post Offices,
Channapatna – 571 501.
4. Sub Postmaster,
Ramanagaram – 571 511. ...Respondents
(By Senior Central Government Standing Counsel Shri M.V.Rao)
O R D E R
HON'BLE SMT.LEENA MEHENDALE ...MEMBER(A)
The Constitution enshrines the principle of Equal opportunity of which one practical aspect in terms of recruitment is wider publicity. This application is filed under the Section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is against the notification No.RMGM/GSMD-II dated 1-1-2010 (Annexure A10) meant for appointment to the post of GDSMD, Ramanagaram. The brief facts of the case are as below:
- 2 -
The post of GDS Mail Carrier fell vacant under Ramanagaram HSG II SO Channapatna HO in Channapatna Division on 4.10.2007. The SPM, Ramanagaram HSG being the appointing authority, notified the vacancy in the unreserved category and called for applications. 12 applications were received which were opened on 25-4-2009 by a selection committee of three members. They found that the present applicant stood first in the merit list drawn by the selection committee on the basis of SSLC marks. The list was meant only for the internal purpose. However during the same deliberations the Selection Committee members also discussed that there were some shortcomings in the selection process and hence, they opined that by choosing one among the 12 available applicants they were not getting the best result for the department. The short comings were as under:
a. In the notification issued, the office of issue of notification
was mentioned as IP-Kanakapura Sub Division instead of
b. Manual correction in the date of notification was not
attested by the appointing authority, thus creating
possibility of doubt among applicants.
c. No records were found for having sent notification to
nearest school, or police station and of endorsing
copy to sub divisional head.
Their Superior Officer namely the Superintendent of Post Offices, Channapatna Division perused the file and also felt that adequate publicity was not given for filling up the post. On his instructions the Complaints Inspector made enquiries and confirmed that it was indeed the case that sufficient publicity was not given.
d. There was corrections in the notification, not endorsed by officers.
e. The notifications was not sent to nearest school or police stations.
f. The notification was not displayed on the office notice
board also (This is the version of Complaint Inspector although
other officials of the Ramanagaram SO in their recorded statement
have stated that the notification was displayed on the notice Board)
Even if the notification was displayed on the office notice board it was felt
- 3 -
inadequate by the Inspector Complaints as well as the Respondent-3. The Respondent-3 therefore, ordered that a fresh notification be issued; He also took care to given specific direction that the earlier 12 candidates need not apply again. It is on the basis of this instructions that the notification dated 1.1.2010 has come to be issued, the same notification is now challenged by the applicant on the ground that vide publicity has already been given to the first notification dated 5.3.2009 and therefore no more vide publicity needs to be given.
3. We heard both the Counsel at length. The learned Counsel for the applicant has argued that it must be construed that wide publicity has been given to the first notification dated 5.3.2009 and that the marks obtained by the applicant are high enough. It is also his argument that if the authorities failed to give wide publicity to the first notification then he should not be made to suffer by once again comparing him with the other candidates who had applied in the first instance and have already been proved to be of lesser merit than him. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents have brought out sufficiently in his written reply as well as in his arguments that the publication of the earlier notification merely on the office notice board cannot be termed as wide publicity. In the absence of such wide publicity the department is deprived of a chance to get a better candidate.
4. On hearing both the learned Counsels, we are of the opinion that the need of the department to get better candidates through wide publicity will be met if we allow the department to go ahead with the notification dated 1.1.2010. At the same time we feel that alongwith the new applicants who have applied in response to the notification the present applicant must be considered without he having to apply again. At the same time the remaining 11 candidates who have responded to the first notification may not be allowed to apply once again as the present applicant has already been held at No.1 in the merit list prepared by the committee on the basis of the SSLC marks. No order as to costs. The interim stay given for proceeding with the new notification is vacated. We would also like to direct the Department of Posts that for a post of GDS Mail Carrier, pretty low level in the hierarchy of the Department, they should have a very clear cut instructions about the qualificatory bench mark as well as mode of publicity to notification so that litigation does not arise on such trivial issues. We therefore direct Respondent-2, Post Master General, Bangalore to issue such circular and send it for the record of this Tribunal within three months.
(LEENA MEHENDALE) (B.VENKATESWARA RAO)