SUGANYA D vs M/o Communications

1 OA/310/01227/2019
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA/310/01227/2019
th
Dated this the 16 day of October, Two Thousand Twenty Six
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. M. SWAMINATHAN, MEMBER (J)
AND
HON'BLE MR. M.L. SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER(A)
D. Suganya,
W/o Sudhakar ,
No.60, Senthil Nagar,
Minjur, Chennai. .. Applicant
By Advocate M/s. C. K. Chandrasekar
Vs.
1. Union of India
rep by Chief Post Master General,
Department of Post,
Anna Salai,
Chennai.
2. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Department of Posts,
Tambaram Division,
Tambaram. .. Respondents
By Advocate Mr. Su Srinivasan, SCGSC

2 OA/310/01227/2019
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial
Member)
This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the
following relief:
“To set aside the Order No. B14/1-14/15-16/PM
dated at Tambaram 600045 the 10-09-2019
issued by the second respondent (A-12 ), as being
illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and
consequently to issue a direction to the
respondents to consider and appoint the
applicant as Postal Assistant, on the basis of the
selection to be held on 15.09.2019, with all
attendant benefits due to the applicant, including
seniority and monetary benefits and to pass such
other orders or directions as this Hon'ble
Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case, award costs and thus
render justice”.
2. Brief facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant
are follows:
The applicant submits that she belongs to the Scheduled
Caste (SC) category and completed her SSLC in March 2003
and HSC in March 2005. She was selected and appointed as
GDS BPM, Kattupakkam BO attached to Ayyappanthangal
SO, in August 2010 and joined duty on 13.09.2010. Though
her appointment was stated to be provisional, she continued

3 OA/310/01227/2019
to discharge her duties regularly. An inspection conducted
on 19.11.2010 also recorded that she had been working in
the said post since 13.09.2010. The respondents proposed to
fill up the Postal Assistant posts from among GDS BPMs
through the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination
(LGO Residual Vacancy Examination). Being a graduate and
possessing the requisite service experience, the applicant
applied through the proper channel on 13.06.2019 for the
examination relating to the vacancies for 2016–2017 and
2017–2018, scheduled to be held on 14.07.2019. However,
by order dated 08.07.2019, communicated to her on
10.07.2019, the second respondent denied her permission to
appear for the examination on the ground that she had not
completed the required five years of service. Aggrieved
thereby, the applicant filed OA No. 885 of 2019 before this
Hon’ble Tribunal and obtained an interim order permitting
her to take the examination. Subsequently, the examination
was cancelled as it was not conducted in Tamil. Thereafter,
the respondent department invited fresh applications on
05.08.2019, pursuant to which the applicant submitted her
application afresh. However, by the impugned order dated

4 OA/310/01227/2019
10.09.2019, the second respondent again declared her
ineligible to appear for the examination scheduled on
15.09.2019. Having no other efficacious remedy, the
applicant has approached this Hon’ble Tribunal seeking
redressal of her grievances. Hence, the present Original
Application.
3. The learned counsel for the applicant contended that
the impugned order dated 10.09.2019, denying the applicant
permission to appear for the selection scheduled on
15.09.2019, is illegal, arbitrary, irrational and contrary to
the applicable rules. He submitted that the respondents had
erroneously declined to count the applicant’s entire service
from the date she initially joined duty as GDS BPM.
4. The learned counsel further submitted that the
respondents had unjustly denied the applicant an
opportunity to be considered for the post of Postal Assistant,
despite her continuous service as GDS BPM since September
2010. As the applicant had discharged the same duties
continuously, the respondents ought to have considered her
application instead of rejecting it at the eleventh hour.

5 OA/310/01227/2019
5. He further contended that the applicant had rendered
more than eight years of continuous service at the same
office, initially on a provisional basis and subsequently
through regular appointment. Since her initial engagement
was not through any backdoor method, her service from the
date of initial appointment ought to have been counted, in
support of which he relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court reported in (1990) 2 SCC 745.
6. The learned counsel also argued that the impugned
order was contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court regarding the reckoning of service. He
submitted that the object of the selection process was to
identify suitable candidates from among serving GDS BPMs
and that the applicant, having rendered more than eight
years of service with a satisfactory record, was eligible to
appear for the LGO Residual Vacancy Examination. The
respondents had failed to consider the relevant factual
circumstances, thereby defeating the applicant’s legitimate

6 OA/310/01227/2019
expectation and resulting in unfair treatment. He further
contended that the respondents were required to act fairly,
particularly in view of the applicant’s belonging to the
Scheduled Caste category.
7. The learned counsel finally submitted that the
respondents could not arbitrarily deprive the applicant of her
right to be considered for promotion. He contended that the
impugned action violated Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the
Constitution of India and that the reasons assigned for
denying her consideration for the post of Postal Assistant
were untenable and unjustified. Accordingly, he prayed that
the Original Application be allowed and the reliefs sought
therein be granted.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents
vehemently opposed the applicant’s contentions and
reiterated the averments made in the reply statement. He
submitted that, upon scrutiny of the applicant’s application
for the post of Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant under the

7 OA/310/01227/2019
GDS quota, the second respondent found that she had not
completed the requisite five years of service as on the
prescribed crucial date and, accordingly, rejected her
application. He contended that the applicant was appointed
to the GDS cadre on a regular basis only on 28.03.2014 and
completed five years of regular service on 28.03.2019. As per
the notification, the crucial date for determining the requisite
service was 1st April of the relevant vacancy year for
vacancies up to 2018 and 01.01.2019 for vacancies
pertaining to 2019.
9. The learned counsel further submitted that, since the
applicant had not completed five years of service as on the
relevant crucial date, she was ineligible to appear for the
examination. Accordingly, her ineligibility was communicated
through the letter dated 10.09.2019 bearing No. B14/1-
14/15-16/PM. He further submitted that, pursuant to the
interim order passed by this Tribunal in the present Original
Application, the applicant was permitted to appear for the
examination scheduled on 15.09.2019 on a provisional
basis. However, such permission was granted only in

8 OA/310/01227/2019
compliance with the Tribunal’s directions and did not confer
any entitlement upon her, as she did not satisfy the
prescribed service condition reckoned from the date of her
regular appointment. Contending that the applicant’s claim
was devoid of merit, the learned counsel prayed for dismissal
of the Original Application.
10. We have considered the arguments advanced by the
learned counsel on either side at length, perused the
pleadings and the materials available on record.
11. At the time of admission, this Tribunal passed the
following interim order on 03.09.2019:
“On considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, the balance of convenience is in favour of the
applicant. Hence, the respondents are directed to
permit the applicant to write the LGO Residual
Vacancy Selection for the post of Postal Assistant
on 15.09.2019 and keep the results in a sealed
cover in respect of the applicant until further
orders.”
12. The principal issue that arises for consideration in the
present Original Application is whether the applicant fulfilled
the prescribed eligibility conditions, particularly the

9 OA/310/01227/2019
requirement of five years of continuous service, as on the
relevant crucial date to appear for the examination for the
posts of Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant.
13. `It is evident from the records that the respondents
issued a notification for conducting a competitive
examination for Gramin Dak Sevaks (GDS) for recruitment to
the cadre of Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant against
unfilled departmental quota vacancies for the years 2015–
2016, 2016–2017, 2017–2018, 2018 (01.04.2018 to
31.12.2018) and 2019 (01.01.2019 to 31.12.2019). The
notification was issued vide Directorate Letter No. A-
34012/05/2019-DE dated 30.07.2019 and communicated
by the second respondent vide letter dated 05.08.2019. The
relevant eligibility conditions stipulated therein were as
follows:
(i) Gramin Dak Sevaks (GDS) should possess the
minimum educational qualification of 10+2 standard
or 12th class from a Recognized University /Board.

10 OA/310/01227/2019
(ii) Upper age limit is 30 years for UR and 35 years for
SC/ST and 33 years for OBC candidates to be
fulfilled as on 1st April of the vacancy year.
(iii) GDS should have put in 5 years of continuous
service on the crucial date fixed for the Vacancy year.
14. The crucial dates prescribed for determining eligibility
in respect of the respective vacancy years were as follows:
Vacancy Year Crucial date of eligibility
2015 - 2016 01.04.2015
2016 - 2017 01.04.2016
2017 – 2018 01.04.2017
2018 01.04.2018
2019 01.01.2019
15. The records reveal that the applicant was initially
appointed as GDS BPM, Kattupakkam, on a provisional
basis with effect from 13.09.2010 and was subsequently
regularised with effect from 28.03.2014. The respondents
have contended that, for the purpose of determining
eligibility under the notification, the requisite five years of
service must be reckoned from the date of regular
appointment. Accordingly, the applicant completed five years
of regular service only on 28.03.2019. In respect of the 2019
vacancy year, the prescribed crucial date was 01.01.2019. As

11 OA/310/01227/2019
on that date, the applicant had completed only four years
and approximately nine months of regular service and had
not fulfilled the stipulated five-year service requirement.
Consequently, the second respondent rejected her claim for
eligibility.
16. We find merit in the respondents’ contention that the
applicant completed five years of regular service as GDS only
on 28.03.2019. Since she had not completed the prescribed
five years of regular service as on the relevant crucial dates,
she did not satisfy the eligibility condition for the LGO
Residual Vacancy Examination in respect of the vacancy
years covered by the notification. Therefore, on the basis of
the respondents’ interpretation of the applicable eligibility
conditions, the rejection of her application cannot be faulted.
17. We are unable to accept the applicant’s contention that
the respondents ignored the relevant factual circumstances
while considering her application. The records indicate that
her eligibility was examined with reference to her date of

12 OA/310/01227/2019
regular appointment and the prescribed crucial date.
Further, the applicant’s contention that she ought to have
been treated fairly in view of her belonging to the Scheduled
Caste category does not, by itself, dispense with the
requirement of satisfying the prescribed service conditions.
The benefit of reservation cannot exempt a candidate from
fulfilling the minimum qualifying service stipulated in the
notification. We also note that a similar issue was considered
by the Ernakulam Bench of the Central Administrative
Tribunal in Anjumol P.R.V. v. Department of Posts , OA No.
618/2020, decided on 12.01.2022.
18. In the above circumstance, we do not find any valid
ground to interfere in the impugned order dated 10.09.2019,
nd
passed by the 2 respondent. In the result, the OA is
dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(M.L. SRIVASTAVA) (M. SWAMINATHAN)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER(J)
16. 10.2026
mas
M A SUNDAR
Digitally signed by M A SUNDAR
Date: 2026.11.02 16:28:51 +05'30'