Amendment seeking to challenge discriminatory guidelines impacting seniority allowed in the interest of justice.

The applicant filed an Original Application (OA) challenging the respondents' decision not to select her for the Postman position through the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE)

She contended that she secured the same highest marks as Respondent No. 4 and was senior to him as a Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS)

The respondents, in their objection and counter, stated that according to a Directorate Letter dated 11.12.2020, inter se rank/merit is decided based on the date of birth, wherein the older candidate is placed higher than the younger candidate for all categories, including GDS

The applicant's previous representation on this matter was disposed of, with reasons for her non-selection communicated to her

The applicant subsequently filed MA No. 540/2025 seeking to amend her OA to challenge the said Directorate Letter dated 11.12.2020, arguing that it is discriminatory as GDS employees have their own seniority/gradation list which should be used to decide their rank, similar to departmental candidates

The respondents objected to the amendment, claiming it would change the character and nature of the OA

Whether the applicant should be permitted to amend her Original Application to challenge the Directorate Letter dated 11.11.2020 on grounds of discrimination

The court implicitly applied principles of procedural fairness and the judicial discretion to allow amendments to pleadings in the interest of justice

This discretion permits amendments when they are necessary to ascertain the true questions in controversy and do not fundamentally alter the character of the suit, especially if the new plea raises a substantial legal question requiring judicial determination

The court considered the applicant's request to amend her OA to challenge the Directorate Letter dated 11.12.2020, which dictates that inter se rank/merit for GDS candidates is determined by date of birth when marks are equal

The applicant argued that this guideline was discriminatory because GDS employees possess their own seniority/gradation list, which should be used for rank determination, similar to departmental candidates

The court recognized that whether these guidelines are discriminatory could only be determined after a full hearing on the merits

Allowing the amendment would facilitate the examination of this specific legal question

Despite the respondents' objection that the amendment would alter the character of the OA, the court determined that permitting the amendment was in the interest of justice, as it would enable a comprehensive adjudication of the legality and fairness of the policy in question

Consequently, MA No. 540/2025 was allowed and disposed of

The applicant was directed to file a consolidated OA within two weeks after serving a copy on the other side, and the respondents were granted four weeks thereafter to file an additional counter, if any

The matter is listed for 24.04.2026