Qualified Surplus IP candidates can be allowed for IP Exam

Qualified Surplus IP candidates are eligible for IP Exam

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH
Original Application No. 708 of 2009
Wednesday, this the 19th day of January, 2011
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE P.R. RAMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Mr. K. GEORGE JOSEPH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER


1. S. Biju,
S/o. N.K. Sudhakaran,
Working as System Administrator,
Kollam Head Post Office,
Residing Arunodayam house,
Thekkevila P.O., Kollam : 691 016

2. S. Bhagyaraj,
S/o. Unnikrishnan Nair,
Working as Postal Assistant,
Pathanapuram P.O.,
Residing at Saraswati Nilayam,
Koodal P.O., Pathanamthitta : 689 695 ... Applicants.

(By Advocate Mr. P.C. Sebastian)

v e r s u s

1. Union of India, represented by its
Secretary, Ministry of Communications,
Department of Posts, New Delhi.

2. The Director General Posts,
Department of Posts, Dak Bhavan,
New Delhi.

3. The Chief Postmaster General,
Kerala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram.

4. The Chief Postmaster General,
Gujarat Circle, Gandhinagar, Gujarat.

5. Shri Anil Kumar N, working as
Inspector Posts (P.G.) Nadiad Postal Division,
Nadiad, Gujarat.

6. Shri Unnikrishnan N, working as
Inspector Posts, Anand Postal Sub Division,
Anand P.O., Gujarat.

7. Smt. Asha Anand, working as
Inspector Posts (P.G), Surendranagar
Postal Division, Surendranagar,
Gujarat. ... Respondents.

(By Advocate Mr. Sunil Jacob Jose, SCGSC for respondents 1 to 4 and Ms. Jagada Bai, Counsel for respondents 5 to 7)

This application having been heard on 11.01.2011, the Tribunal on 19.01.11 delivered the following:
O R D E R

HON'BLE MR. K GEORGE JOSEPH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

The applicants are qualified surplus candidates of the Inspector of Posts Examination (IP examination), 2008. The name of the applicant No. 2 has been deleted from the party array on allowing M.A. No. 04/2011 on 04.01.2011. The applicants have filed this O.A. for a direction to the respondents to revise Annexure A-1 select list by deleting the names of respondents 5 to 7 and giving applicants their due positions in the list.
2. The applicants contend that the respondents No. 5 to 7 who are surplus qualified candidates of the IP Examination, 2007, and were allotted to the Gujarat Circle and working as Inspector of Posts in Gujarat at the time of 2008 IP Examination were ineligible to appear for the IP Examination, 2008 without being reverted to the lower cadre. Even after their allotment to the Gujarat Circle and after joining as Inspectors there, the partyrespondents were permitted to appear in the IP Examination, 2008 against the vacancies in Kerala Circle in the examination centres in Gujarat against the provisions of Annexure A-8 notification. The persons similarlycircumstanced as the party respondents were not permitted to appear in the said examination in centres elsewhere. The party respondents alongwith other surplus candidates unsuccessfully claimed for the 2008 vacancies in Kerala in O.A. No. 499/2008. They are getting double benefits of selection and appointment in the vacancies of 2007 and transfer to home circle which they could not have obtained but for their inclusion in the select list of 2008. The selection of party respondents, the surplus qualified candidates of 2007 IP Examination, is still in force and the consequential allotment to the Gujarat Circle appointing them as Inspectors in that Circle are also still in force and hence they are estopped from claiming the benefit of IP Examination, 2008. The aplicants have no more chance available to improve their position in the matter of promotion as Inspectors. As per the interim order of this Tribunal dated 06.11.2009, the applicants were deputed for training at PTC, Mysore, subject to the final outcome of this O.A.
3. The respondents contested the O.A. It was submitted on their behalf that till 2007 in a Circle only candidates equal to the number of vacancies in that Circle were selected and appointed to the post of Inspectors. By Annexure A-3 dated 13.04.2007, the Surplus Scheme was introduced whereby an All India merit list was drawn up comprising those candidates who qualify in all the papers but who do not figure in the merit list. These candidates will thereafter be allotted to those Circles which have unfilled vacancies in accordance with candidates' All India merit and choice of Circles exercised by them to the extent of availability of vacancies. The induction training for the candidates who are selected as per the merit list would commence immediately after the publication of the result at different PTCs. But the training for the surplus candidates will be formulated only after receiving the options from all the surplus candidates and their allotment to the Circles will be made as per their choice if vacancy exists. For them, a separate training package was formulated which included intensive training in the local language of the State to which they were posted. The Surplus Scheme was formulated with a view to reduce the shortage of qualified Inspectors and also to provide life line to those candidates who perform well in the All India Examination scoring higher marks but do not find a place in the select list of their home circle for want of vacancies. It was also submitted that the applicants have approached this Tribunal without making any representations to the various levels of authorities through available channels for redressing their grievances. The applicants herein are candidates in the surplus list of 2008. The party respondents are those candidates who had found a place in the merit list on account of having scored higher marks than the applicants. The examination for promotion to the cadre of Inspector of Posts was notified on 01.01.2008 much before the deputation of the private respondents for induction training at PTC, Vadodara on 22.09.2008. The party respondents applied for the said examination in their substantive capacity as Postal Assistants as they wanted to compete for the vacancies available in Kerala Circle for securing appointment in their home State. No provision in the rules prevented them from appearing for the said examination. The applicants were well aware of the inclusion of the private respondents in the list at Annexure R-5(B) containing the names of 97 candidates eligible to appear for the said examination. Having attended the said examination, the applicants are now estopped from challenging the action of the respondents permitting the party respondents to appear in the IP Examination, 2008, after publication of the results of the said examination on finding that that they have secured more marks than the applicants.
4. The respondents further contended that on successful completion of their training the party respondents were appointed as Inspector of Posts in the Gujarat Circle subject to their coming out successful in the language proficiency test within two years' period of probation. They hold the post of Inspectors as ad hoc appointees until they qualify in the language proficiency test. When the party respondents submitted applications for the IP Examination, 2008, they were working as Postal Assistants in Kerala and were yet to be allotted to Gujarat Circle. Having secured lower marks than the party respondents, the applicants cannot come up with an assumption that if the party respondents had not been permitted to appear in the said examination, they would have figured in the merit list. Having their lien in the substantive posts of Postal Assistants in Kerala Postal Circle, the party respondents were fully eligible to appear for the IP Examination, 2008. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2265/2007 held that "it is settled position of law that only when an incumbent acquires lien on another post ,his lien on the previous post stands automatically terminated." This position of law is squarely applicable in the case of the party respondents in this case. In the Civil Services Examination held throughout the country every year, the candidates are given option for selecting services and the allotment is made based on their position in the merit list. Even if a candidate qualifies once, he is given a chance to appear again for the same examination next year to improve his position in the rank list. On the same analogy, the party respondents who were surplus candidates posted to Gujarat Circle were given a chance to compete for the vacancies available in their home circle by permitting them to sit for the said examination. The party respondents were not full fledged Inspectors of Gujarat Circle at the time of the IP Examination, 2008, as they had lien on the post of Postal Assistants in Kerala Circle. They are ad hoc appointees as Inspector of Posts till they are confirmed after passing the language proficiency test. The moot point in O.A. No. 499/2009 is entirely different from that in this O.A.. The official respondents and the party respondents cannot be faulted for their inability to figure in the merit list ahead of the private respondents in the IPO Examination, 2008. In the circumstances, the O.A. should be dismissed.
5. We have heard Mr. P.C. Sebastian, counsel for the applicant, Mr. Sunil Jacob Jose, SCGSC, for the respondents 1 to 4 and Ms. Jagada Bai, counsel for the respondents 5 to 7 and perused the records.
6. The short question to be decided is whether the party respondents in this O.A were eligible to appear in the IP Examination, 2008, or not. They were surplus candidates in accordance with the surplus scheme introduced vide Annexure A-3 dated 13.04.2007. Para 8 of the said scheme reads as under :
"8. the surplus qualified candidates, who are allotted to other Circles, will be required to pass a language proficiency test in the language of the State of the concerned, within the period of probation of two years. This test shall be conducted by the Circle itself. Candidates who fail to pass the language proficiency test shall be reverted to their substantive cadre and would be free to undertake the next IP examination subject to the prescribed eligibility norms."
7. The surplus qualified candidates have to pass a language proficiency test in the local language within a period of two years. In case they fail to pass the same they would be reverted to their substantive cadre and would be free to undertake the next IP examination subject to the prescribed eligibility norms. Based on this condition, the applicants argued that the party respondents were not eligible to appear in the IP Examination, 2008. The surplus scheme is an extended benefit granted to the meritorious candidates who could not be accommodated in the home Circle for want of vacancies. It also reduces the shortage of qualified Inspectors in the country. There is nothing in the scheme that takes away the vested right of the surplus candidates to appear in the subsequent IP examination during the period of probation. As rightly submitted by the official respondents, the surplus candidates who were allotted to a Circle other than their home Circle are ad hoc appointees on the post of Inspectors until they qualify in the language proficiency test of that Circle. They will be confirmed on the post of Inspectors only after passing the language proficiency test. Only after confirmation, they will acquire lien in the allotted Circle entailing automatic termination of their lien in the previous posts of Postal Assistants. In the eyes of law, the substantive posts of the party respondents would be Postal Assistants till they are confirmed on the posts of inspector of Posts in Gujarat. It is very relevant that the IP Examination, 2008 was notified long before the date of deputation of the party respondents for their induction training. They were actually working as Postal Assistants in Kerala Circle and were yet to be allotted to Gujarat Circle inspite of their being included inthe surplus list. Inclusion in the surplus list in no way extinguishes the vested right of the party respondents in regard to lien in the post of Postal Assistants and thereby to appear in the IP Examination, 2008. Therefore,the party respondents were eligible to appear in the IP Examination, 2008.
8. Further, as submitted by the respondents, the applicants have not exhausted the available channels for redressing their grievances before approaching this Tribunal. They were also aware of the fact that the party respondents were included in the list of 97 candidates eligible to appear in the said examination published by the 3rd respondent. After having attended the said examination and on finding that they have secured less marks than the party respondents and that they missed a place in the merit list, they are now estopped from challenging the action of the respondents permitting the party respondents to appear in the IP Examination, 2008. Also, we do not find any merit in the other contentions of the applicants.
9. In our considered view, there is nothing unjust, arbitrary or discriminatory in permitting the party respondents to appear in the IP Examination 2008. They were fully eligible to appear in the IP Examination,2008. Devoid of any merit, the O.A. is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(Dated, the 19th January, 2011)

(K. GEORGE JOSEPH) (JUSTICE P.R. RAMAN)
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER