Removal based on KSOU bridge-course qualification set aside; reinstatement ordered without arrears, subject to review.

The applicant was engaged as Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Deliverer/Mail Carrier (GDS MD/MC) at Darga Branch Office under Vijayapura Division from 31 January 2015.

For the engagement, he relied upon a Bridge Course certificate/marks card issued by Karnataka State Open University (KSOU), which had initially been verified as genuine by the University.

Following departmental instructions concerning the recognition of KSOU Bridge Course certificates, the Assistant Superintendent of Posts initiated proceedings under Rule 10 of the Department of Posts Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2011.

The Disciplinary Authority removed him from engagement by order dated 22 February 2021, and the Appellate Authority rejected his appeal on 17 May 2021.

He consequently filed the present Original Application seeking quashing of the departmental orders and reinstatement with consequential benefits.

Whether the SSLC marks sheet/Bridge Course certificate issued by KSOU for the academic year 2013–14 entitled the applicant to engagement as GDS MD/MC?

Whether the applicant’s removal from engagement by order dated 22 February 2021, as affirmed by the Appellate Authority on 17 May 2021, was legally sustainable?

The Tribunal applied Rule 10 of the Department of Posts Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2011, governing disciplinary proceedings against GDS personnel.

It relied principally on Santhosh Kumar R. v. Union of India, W.P. No. 25540/2022, decided by the Karnataka High Court on 30 August 2024, which granted relief to a GDS appointee who had obtained appointment on the basis of a KSOU Bridge Course certificate and had served for a substantial period before the department questioned the qualification.

The Tribunal also considered Dada Peer v. Chief Post Master General, W.P. No. 51749/2019, decided on 1 March 2021, where discretionary relief was granted despite the candidate being technically unqualified on the date of notification, particularly because the appointment had been processed by the department and the candidate had rendered service.

The Tribunal further followed its own decision in Sunilkumar v. Union of India, OA No. 678/2024, dated 31 July 2026, concerning the identical issue.

The Tribunal found the applicant’s case materially identical to Santhosh Kumar R.

The relevant consideration was that the applicant had relied on a KSOU Bridge Course certificate for the academic year 2013–14, had obtained engagement through the department’s own process, and had rendered service before the qualification was subsequently questioned.

Following the Karnataka High Court’s approach in Santhosh Kumar R. and Dada Peer, the Tribunal held that the department could not retrospectively dislodge the appointment in the circumstances, particularly where the certificate had been treated as genuine and the applicant had served pursuant to the departmental appointment.

Although the respondents maintained that the Bridge Course was not recognised and that the removal followed Rule 10 procedure, the Tribunal treated the High Court’s decision on the identical factual and legal controversy as controlling for the grant of relief.

However, because the Original Application had been filed after delay, reinstatement was directed only from the date on which the respondents received the certified copy of the Tribunal’s order, rather than retrospectively from the date of removal.

The respondents were directed to reinstate the applicant from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, subject to the outcome of Review Petition No. 268/2025 in W.P. No. 25540/2022 before the Karnataka High Court.

The respondents were directed to consider consequential benefits, including continuity of service and notional seniority; however, the applicant was held not entitled to arrears of salary for the period during which he had not worked.

No order as to costs was made.