CAT - ['Lucknow']
Employment and Labour LawAdministrative and Public Law

Group D Safaiwalas listed as eligible cannot be excluded from clerical selection based on department.

DAYANAND vs Union Of India

CAT - ['Lucknow']JUDGMENT: October 07, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
Group D Safaiwalas listed as eligible cannot be excluded from clerical selection based on department.. DAYANAND vs Union Of India. CAT - ['Lucknow']. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The applicants, regularised Safaiwala (Group D) employees in the Commercial and Medical Departments respectively, applied for promotion to Clerk-cum-Typist under a notification dated 7 November 2016.

Source reference: pp. 1–3

They were excluded from the eligibility list on the ground that they did not work in administrative offices, although the notification listed Safaiwala as an eligible category.

Source reference: pp. 1–3

By interim order, they were permitted to sit the examination provisionally, and their results were placed in sealed cover.

Source reference: p. 3

The respondents later stated that both applicants had been promoted as Junior Clerks and had received further promotions in the ordinary course.

Source reference: p. 3
02

Issues

Whether the applicants were eligible to participate in the 7 November 2016 selection despite working in the Commercial and Medical Departments rather than administrative offices.

Source reference: pp. 2–4

Whether the applicants’ sealed-cover results should be opened and, if they qualified, consequential notional benefits granted.

Source reference: p. 4
03

Law Applied

The Tribunal applied the terms of the selection notification dated 7 November 2016, which listed “Bhishti/Safaiwala” among the eligible categories and was addressed to all officers of the Lucknow Division.

Source reference: p. 3

No statute, regulation, or judicial precedent was cited.

Source reference: no citation

The governing principle was that eligibility must be determined by the notification’s stated categories; an additional administrative-office restriction could not be imposed where the notification did not provide for it.

Source reference: pp. 3–4
04

Reasoning

The notification expressly included Safaiwala among the eligible categories and applied to the Lucknow Division.

Source reference: pp. 3–4

The applicants’ departmental postings therefore did not make them ineligible on the stated ground that they were not working in administrative offices.

Source reference: pp. 3–4

Since they had participated provisionally and their results were in sealed cover, the Tribunal directed that the results be opened and linked any further relief to whether they had qualified.

Source reference: p. 4
05

Holding

The Tribunal held that the applicants were not ineligible for the selection notified on 7 November 2016.

It directed the respondents to open their sealed-cover results and, if either applicant had qualified, grant that applicant notional benefits at par with other successful candidates within three months of receiving a certified copy of the order.

Source reference: p. 4

Pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.

Source reference: p. 4
CAT - ['Lucknow']

Original Court PDF

DAYANANDvsUnion Of India

CAT - ['Lucknow'] · October 07, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment