Former GDS On Relevant Vacancy Dates: CAT Orders Postal Assistant Appointment If She Passed Delayed Exam And Meets Other Conditions

The applicant was engaged as a Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) Branch Postmaster in 2012 and later appointed as a Postwoman, joining service on 22 October 2018.

She sought to appear in the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) for Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant (PA/SA), contending that examinations for certain earlier vacancy years had not been held and that she had been a GDS on the relevant eligibility dates.

The Department initially decided that candidates who were GDS on the relevant crucial dates could appear, but withdrew that decision on 8 July 2019.

By interim order, the Tribunal permitted the applicant to sit the examination scheduled for 15 September 2019 and directed that her result be kept in a sealed cover.

The applicant appeared; the final order considered her eligibility by reference to the relevant vacancy years and the prior Tribunal decisions on comparable claims.

The applicant invoked the Tribunal’s jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

The Tribunal applied the principle that eligibility for an examination relating to a particular vacancy year is assessed by reference to the prescribed crucial date for that year; where an examination was not conducted when due, a candidate who was eligible on the relevant crucial date should not be denied the opportunity to compete merely because their service status later changed.

It relied on the Bangalore Bench’s decision in OA No. 967/2019, which held that an otherwise eligible candidate should be allowed to compete on merit and addressed the consequences of a subsequent change of cadre.

It also referred to this Bench’s decision in OA No. 1271/2024, which rejected denial of appointment solely because candidates had subsequently moved from the feeder cadre, where they had been permitted to take the examination and succeeded.

The Tribunal found that the LDCE held on 15 September 2019 covered departmental-quota vacancies for earlier years for which examinations had not been conducted, and that eligibility therefore had to be considered by reference to the relevant crucial dates rather than solely to the date of the 2019 notification.

The applicant was a GDS on the crucial dates for the 2017–2018 and 2018 vacancy years and had been permitted to sit the examination under the interim order.

Applying the cited Tribunal decisions, the Tribunal concluded that her subsequent appointment as a Postwoman did not, by itself, defeat her claim to consideration for the examination vacancies for which she had been eligible.

Since she had already taken the examination, the appropriate relief was to open the sealed cover and act on the result, subject to her success and satisfaction of all other required conditions.

It directed the respondents to open the applicant’s sealed-cover result and, if she had qualified and fulfilled the other requirements, to appoint her as PA/SA from the date on which other successful candidates in the LDCE were appointed, with all consequential benefits.

The exercise was to be completed within three months of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

There was no order as to costs.