DIPANGSHU DE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pursuant to the publication uploaded on the website of the Staff Selection Commission relating to Combined Graduate Level Examination, 2018 for filling up Group-B and Group-C posts in the various Ministries, Departments, and Organisations in the Government of India., the writ petitioners of the aforementioned writ petitions applied their candidature. The said publication would indicate that the examination would be conducted on four level i.e. computer-based examination/Tier-I, Tier-II, Tier- III (Descriptive) and Tier-IV (Skill Test). All the aforesaid writ petitioners were successful in the Combined Graduate Level Examination, 2018 and figured in the list of successful candidates published subsequently. The writ petitioners were recommended by the Commission for the appointment against the vacancies reported for Junior Accountant cadre available in the Postal Accounts Offices. Subsequently, an Office Order was issued on 28/5/2021 requesting all the successful candidates to furnish state wise preference in the enclosed pro-forma and it was clearly indicated therein that the allocation would be with reference to a rank obtained in the said examination vis-a-vis the preference given and vacancies available in the respective cadre. All the aforesaid writ petitioners furnished the State preference and opted for Kolkata, State West Bengal within the time stipulated therein. The writ petitioners felt aggrieved when the authorities have issued the appointment letter in Junior Accountant cadre in the Postal Department in other zone than Kolkata/West Bengal. According to the petitioner, two dossiers contained in the Office Order dated 9/10/8/2021 revealed that despite there being a clear vacancy under the Unreserved category in which the petitioners offered their candidatures, those have been filled up by the candidates belonging to OBC categories. Even apart, those OBC category candidates would not have been accommodated under the Unreserved category ranked much below the rank of the writ petitioners and, therefore, the authorities have compromised the merit and arbitrarily selected the candidates in a particular category which is impermissible in law.

(2.) After revelation of the aforesaid facts that the petitioner who stood higher in rank in the merit list have not been given appointment to a first preferred zone which should be on the basis of the merit; the less meritorious candidates belonging to the different categories have been appointed in the Unreserved category and the approach was made to Tribunal individually. All the writ petitioners herein had approached the Tribunal individually but their applications were taken up together by the Central Administrative Tribunal and were disposed of by a common order dtd. 14/9/2021 directing the writ petitioners to make representations, which shall be decided by the competent authority on the basis of the office memorandum dtd. 4/6/2010. The Tribunal further directed the writ petitioners to furnish their documents as called for vide Memo dtd. 28/5/2021 within a stipulated time.

(3.) Pursuant to the aforesaid liberty having granted, the representation was filed by the respective writ petitioners before the competent authority within the time indicated therein. By a Speaking Order dtd. 24/9/2021, the competent authority did not accept the grievance raised by the writ petitioners and disposed of the said representation as there is no illegality and/or arbitrariness in taking a decision in posting the writ petitioner at different zones than Kolkata, State of West Bengal. The Speaking Order would reveal that few OBC candidates from West Bengal who were selected in UR category subsequently submitted representations to be considered as OBC category candidate as per the subject Rules/guidelines of the DoPT OM dtd. 9/10/2007; Rule 38 of the Postal Manual Rules, Volume IV of the Department of Posts postulates that the order of transfer issued by the headquarters of due approval of DG (Posts) on several representations from the Union may permit the circle transfer to accountants from one circle to other as a welfare measure and, therefore, these transfer orders were passed in relation to a Junior Accountant and Senior Accountant which were pending for quite some time. The third reason which it appears therefrom relates to an adjustment of the vacancies in a deficit circles to overcome the administrative exigencies faced in such circles and, therefore, certain posts were allotted to a different circles and for such reason there is a nil vacancy under the UR category at PAO Kolkata. However, the suggestion was also made in the said Speaking Order that the petitioner may opt for option to join the department where he has been offered the post and then apply for a transfer under the said Rule 38 of Postal Manual, Volume IV which will be considered by the authorities on merit. The said Speaking Order is challenged by the writ petitioners before the Tribunal individually and all the Tribunal Applications were taken up together and were dismissed upholding the stand of the respondent authorities.