UNION OF INDIA Vs. G.LAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question arising for our consideration in this Original Petition (CAT) is whether the declaration granted by the Central Administrative Tribunal in the impugned Ext.P3 order to the effect that Group-B officials in level-6 of the Department of Posts are eligible to be promoted to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer as per the Recruitment Rules namely, the Indian Post and Telecommunications Accounts and Financial Service Group 'B' (Accounts Officers and Assistant Accounts Officers) Recruitment Rules, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' for short), is legally sustainable.

(2.) The petitioners herein are the respondents in OA No.838/2018 and the applicants in the original application are respondents 1 to 3 herein. The parties are referred to as they appear in this court. The Tribunal, on a consideration of the issue, has come to the conclusion that Group-B officials in level-6 are also entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer in terms of the Rules.

(3.) Sri. Raj Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners would vehemently contend, inter alia, that the Tribunal interpreted the Rules in a perverse manner and granted the declaration sought and that the respondents really had no cause of action to approach the Tribunal. He contends that the filing of the original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench is an attempt at forum shopping. He states that the 1st respondent (who was the 1st applicant in the original application) was borne in Group-C Cadre and she was eligible to appear for the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination, 2018 (LDCE) in terms of the Rules and she was so allowed to sit for the examination. According to him, the 2nd respondent who represents the interests of those in Kerala Circle is also not aggrieved as the 1st respondent and others whose interests are sought to be protected by the 2nd respondent are eligible to partake in the selection as they are borne in Group C cadre. As far as the right, if any, of the third respondent (3rd applicant) is concerned, it is contended that the third respondent is admittedly working in Tamil Nadu and cannot approach the Ernakulam Bench. It is contended with reference to the prayers made in the original application that the original application was filed to project the case of persons whose names are mentioned in the document produced as Annexure-A4 before the Tribunal. It is specifically pointed out that the 1st respondent (1st applicant before the Tribunal) and the persons mentioned in Sl. No.5 (P. Geetha) and Sl. No.13 (Sreelatha P.) of Annexure-A4 whose interests are represented by the 2 nd respondent herein are all Group-C officers though they are in level-6 of the pay matrix after obtaining 'MACP' (financial up-gradation) which, is personal to the officer concerned. Our attention is also drawn specifically to paragraph 9 of Ext.P3 order of the Central Administrative Tribunal where the Tribunal had specifically noticed the stand of the present petitioners that the 1st respondent and Smt. P. Geetha and Smt. Sreelatha P. are eligible and entitled to appear for LDCE 2018 in terms of the Recruitment Rules. Our attention is also drawn to the fact that a specific contention was taken regarding the ineligibility of the 3rd respondent (3rd applicant before the Tribunal) to approach the CAT, Ernakulam Bench as he is not working in the Kerala Circle and is working as Post Master Grade-II at Gopalapuram, Chennai. He would refer to the Recruitment Rules (Annexure-A2 before the Tribunal) and take us through Column-11 of the Rules to contend that Group-B officers in level-6 of the pay matrix were clearly excluded by the provisions contained in the Rules. Smt.R.Leela, the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 (applicants before the Tribunal) would submit that the interpretation placed by the Tribunal, on the Rules, is not perverse and that such interpretation is clearly in consonance with the relevant Rules. She would submit that the Tribunal had interfered only on account of the fact that persons who were clearly eligible had been unreasonably excluded by the Department. She would urge that we should confirm the order of the Tribunal.