Selective reversion of junior Postal Assistants despite alleged vacancy shortage is arbitrary and discriminatory.

The applicant, a Postal Assistant appointed at Kolkata GPO through the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination, was temporarily attached to Baruipur Division pursuant to the respondents’ decision to redeploy Postal Assistants from Kolkata GPO to Baruipur Division.

The respondents stated that a review had disclosed an excess of 50 Postal Assistant posts at Kolkata GPO and a requirement for additional staff at Baruipur Division; consequently, 50 posts were abolished at Kolkata GPO and simultaneously created at Baruipur Division.

The applicant was one of 11 Postal Assistants attached to Baruipur Division while continuing on the rolls of Kolkata GPO, with pay protection.

The applicant sought repatriation to Kolkata GPO and parity with similarly situated Postal Assistants.

Although the respondents pleaded that no vacancy existed at Kolkata GPO, they repatriated several junior officials, including Ravishankar Kumar, Sangeeta Poddar, Rajib Majumder and Subhagata Das; two other officials, Md. Asrarul Haque and Abhishek Ghosh, were repatriated pursuant to orders of the Tribunal.

The application was filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

1. Whether the respondents’ refusal to repatriate the applicant to Kolkata GPO, while repatriating similarly situated and junior Postal Assistants, was arbitrary and discriminatory.

2. Whether the respondents could rely on the alleged absence of vacancies at Kolkata GPO after having independently repatriated several Postal Assistants to that establishment.

3. Whether the applicant was entitled to an order directing his reversion/repatriation to his parent Division, Kolkata GPO.

The application was maintainable under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which permits an aggrieved government employee to challenge service-related orders before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal applied the principles of equality, non-discrimination, fairness and non-arbitrariness in administrative action, corresponding to the constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

The governing rule was that an administrative authority cannot adopt a selective or “pick and choose” approach among similarly situated employees, particularly where the justification advanced by the authority is contradicted by its own subsequent conduct.

The applicant stood at Serial No. 4 in the list of 11 Postal Assistants attached to Baruipur Division.

The respondents’ principal justification was that no vacancy existed at Kolkata GPO and that all 11 officials were required to remain attached at Baruipur until a vacancy arose.

However, the respondents had themselves repatriated officials junior to the applicant, including Rajib Majumder, Subhagata Das, Ravishankar Kumar and Sangeeta Poddar.

This conduct undermined the vacancy-based justification and demonstrated that the applicant had been treated differently from similarly situated employees.

The Tribunal accordingly held that the respondents had acted in a “pick and choose” manner and had discriminated against the applicant.

The asserted absence of a vacancy was therefore rejected as an insufficient basis for denying the applicant equivalent treatment.

The competent respondent authority was directed to pass an appropriate order reverting/repatriating the applicant to his parent Division, Kolkata GPO, within seven days of receiving a certified copy of the order.

The Original Application was accordingly allowed, with no order as to costs.