Gramin Dak Sevaks are eligible for appointment to any vacant post within the same recruitment unit.

The Applicant, working as a Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) MD at Kantapada B.O., was directed via a memo dated 12.07.2016 to work at Katada B.O. following the retirement of the permanent incumbent

The Applicant subsequently submitted representations in 2020 requesting permanent absorption/transfer to the Katada B.O. post

On 26.08.2020, Respondent No. 4 rejected the request on the grounds of "TRCA (Time Related Continuity Allowance) Slab mismatch"

Simultaneously, the Respondents issued a notification on 31.08.2020 inviting public applications for the post and advised the Applicant to apply as a fresh candidate

The Applicant challenged the rejection order and the recruitment notification, seeking absorption in the post

1. Whether the rejection of the Applicant’s request for transfer/absorption based on TRCA slab mismatch was legally sustainable

2. Whether the Respondents were required to consider the Applicant for the vacancy within the "recruitment unit" as per established circulars and judicial precedents before opening the post to the general public

Director General of Posts Circular dated 12.09.1988, which allows existing Extra Departmental Agents (now GDS) to be appointed against vacant posts in the same office or place without going through the Employment Exchange, provided they are suitable

Clarificatory Letter No. 19-21/94-ED Training dated 11.08.1994, which expanded the term "place" to mean "recruiting unit"

Precedent set by the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in Achyuta Kumar Pradhan v. Union of India (OJC No. 835 of 1999), which held that vacancies must be considered from the perspective of the entire recruiting unit

Office Memorandum No.17-31/2016-GDS dated 25.06.2018 regarding TRCA levels

The Tribunal observed that the facts of the present case were identical to those in Achyuta Kumar Pradhan, where the High Court of Orissa ruled that the zone of consideration for filling GDS vacancies must include existing employees within the same "recruiting unit"

Although the Respondents argued that the transfer was impermissible due to a mismatch between TRCA Level-1 and Level-2 and cited Directorate guidelines, the Tribunal found that the High Court’s interpretation of the DG Posts circulars was binding

The Tribunal noted that if an existing GDS is within the same recruiting unit, they should be given preference or affirmative consideration under the 1988 circular and 1994 clarification

Consequently, the summary rejection of the Applicant’s representation without considering these specific provisions and judicial precedents was deemed improper

It quashed the rejection orders dated 26.08.2020 (Annexure-A/8) and 10.09.2020 (Annexure-A/15)

The Respondents were directed to reconsider the Applicant's case afresh, specifically keeping in mind the observations and principles laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa regarding transfers within a recruiting unit

The Respondents must communicate a well-reasoned speaking order to the Applicant within 90 days of receiving the judgment

No order was made as to costs