Revaluation-based appointments must be assigned to the examination’s original vacancy year.

The applicant, a Gramin Dak Sevak, appeared in the 2012 Limited Departmental Competitive Examination for Postman vacancies for 2011 and qualified as a surplus candidate.

The respondents treated the vacancy as unavailable because Shri Subhash J. Doddi, whose marks were revised on revaluation of the 2007 examination, had been adjusted against a 2011 vacancy.

In an earlier application, OA No. 1140/2019, the Tribunal held that Doddi’s appointment related to the 2007 vacancy year and remitted the applicant’s claim for fresh consideration.

The authorities nevertheless rejected the applicant’s representation, maintaining that no 2011 vacancy was available.

The applicant challenged those rejection orders in this application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

1. Whether the respondents could reject the applicant’s claim to appointment for the 2011 vacancy year by relying on the adjustment of Doddi’s appointment to that year, despite the Tribunal’s earlier ruling that Doddi’s appointment related to 2007.

2. Whether the applicant, having qualified in the examination for the 2011 vacancies, was entitled to appointment against that vacancy year, with consequential benefits.

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 provides the basis for an aggrieved person to seek relief before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal applied the principle that a final judicial direction must be followed in letter and spirit; the respondents could not reopen or disregard the determination in OA No. 1140/2019 that Doddi’s appointment related to the 2007 vacancy year.

It also relied on its order in OA No. 853/2013, which directed that Doddi be treated as appointed from the relevant earlier date with consequential benefits, but did not direct that his appointment be adjusted against a 2011 vacancy.

The Tribunal held that a supernumerary post should have been created to accommodate Doddi for 2007 rather than charge his appointment to the 2011 vacancies.

The earlier order in OA No. 1140/2019 had expressly found that adjusting Doddi’s appointment to 2011 was untenable and required consideration of the qualified candidates for the 2011 examination.

The respondents’ subsequent reliance on that very adjustment to conclude that no vacancy remained failed to comply with the binding determination.

Further, OA No. 853/2013 granted Doddi retrospective appointment-related relief but did not authorize his adjustment against a 2011 vacancy.

The Tribunal therefore found the impugned orders arbitrary and perverse, and held that the applicant’s claim could not be rejected on the basis that the 2011 vacancy had been consumed by Doddi’s appointment.

It directed the respondents to appoint the applicant as Postman against the 2011 vacancy, based on the examination held on 16 December 2012, with consequential benefits, by creating a supernumerary post.

Compliance was directed within 12 weeks of receipt of the certified copy of the order.

The application was allowed to that extent, with no order as to costs.