UNION OF INDIA Vs. ABHICK SAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the above matters pertain to a single selection process conducted by the Central Government in its Department of Post for appointment of Postal/Sorting Assistant. As per the recruitment process, forty per cent weightage was given to the result of the 10+2 examination without any bonus mark for higher qualification. Aptitude Test was for hundred marks carrying fifty per cent weightage. The Aptitude Test did not have any negative marking. The balance ten per cent was for Data Entry knowledge on computer and for typing a passage on computer in Hindi/English.

(2.) ACCORDINGLY, the authority issued a notification dated September 18, 2009 in respect of one hundred sixty eight vacancies of Postal Assistant in twenty-six divisions and twenty-two vacancies for the post of Sorting Assistant in six divisions. Ten posts for PA in Circle Office, six posts in S.B.C.O. and three posts of Postal Assistants for sports quota were also notified. Wide publicity was made in the print media inviting application for the post. ACCORDINGLY, examination was held. Altogether two hundred and seven successful candidates were selected for the post. Unsuccessful candidates lodged several complaints alleging irregularities. The Vigilance Division of the Directorate submitted a preliminary report. According to the report, the recruitment process appeared to have been tainted and was not free from doubt. The Department of Post vide letter dated July 8, 2010 directed appointments to be kept in abeyance. Chief Post Master General set up a Committee of three Post Master General and asked the Committee to submit a report. He also wrote a letter to the Superintendent of Police, CBI in this regard. The Committee zeroed down the complaints and observed that there were three principal allegations of irregularities which were :-

(3.) IN the mean time, the selected candidates were categorized in three groups, one group got the appointment immediately. The second group was sent for training whereas the third group was yet to be touched. Most of the selected candidates approached the Tribunal independently inter alia praying for a direction upon the Postal Authority to give appointment in terms of the selection made. The Tribunal heard all the matters analogously and disposed of the same vide judgment and order dated February 4, 2011 appearing at pages 1 to 68 of the paper book.