S MUTHU KRISHNAN Vs. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE OFFICES; INSPECTOR OF POST OFFICES; REGISTRAR, CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this Writ Petition is, to the order, dated 22.04.2015, made in O.A.No.1411 of 2013 along with M.A.No.310/00657/2014, on the file of the third respondent.

(2.) Facts, as adduced from the material on record are that initially, the petitioner was appointed as a Gramin Dak Sevak in the respondent department on 13.04.1989. On 28.04.2013, the department conducted a Limited Departmental Examination to the post of Postman in Tamil Nadu circle. The petitioner participated in the said examination and was declared as selected, by the proceedings of Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, first respondent herein, dated 22.05.2013. By order, dated 30.05.2013, the first respondent also directed the petitioner to attend the institutional induction training, for two weeks, commencing from 03.06.2013 to 15.06.2013. After the training, the petitioner was appointed as a Postman in Chidambaranagar SO, vide order, dated 13.06.2013, issued by Inspector of Post Offices, Tuticorin Sub-division, Tuticorin, the second respondent herein. The petitioner was also directed to undergo training at Workplace Computer Training Centre, Madurai, in order to complete the training with regard to "Data Entry in Departmental Software to Postman", which he also completed. On 04.10.2013, he was issued with a notice, dated 25.09.2013, wherein it was proposed to cancel his appointment as Postman, on the ground, that, after revaluation of the answer scripts, he was found to have failed. According to the petitioner, no reason was indicated in the notice. Aggrieved over the same, petitioner made a representation, dated 09.10.2013, to the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Tuticorin Division, Tuticorin, namely, the first respondent. Thereafter, petitioner has filed O.A.No.1411 of 2013, under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, seeking to set aside the said notice, dated 25.09.2013.

(3.) Before the Tribunal, the petitioner has contended that the notice, dated 25.09.2013, issued, cancelling his appointment as Postman, is illegal and without any jurisdiction. Reference has been made to Appendix 37 Rule 15 to the Postal Manual Vol IV, and a contention has been raised that no revaluation of answer script of a candidate, appearing for departmental examination, is allowed, under any circumstances. Contention has also been made that the notice was issued after the recruitment process was over and all the selected candidates, including the petitioner, had successfully completed the respective training, and appointed to different Post Offices in the department.