PRADEEP KUMAR v. M/O COMMUNICATIONS

3

Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS), and, that, the minimum qualification for the post of GDS was 8^thClass. It was also noted that priority would be given to those who have qualified in the 10^thclass. The applicant, who had secured 85% marks in 10^thClass, and, claiming himself to be eligible, responded to the said advertisement.

The applicant is aggrieved that, by an order dated 14.02.2014 at Annexure-A/5 to the OA, private respondent No.6 was appointed in the said post. Although the said private respondent had secured only 84% marks in 10^thclass, he was declared as the most meritorious among the responding candidates. Objecting to the same, the applicant represented on 16.04.2014 as per Annexure-A/6 to the OA, but neither did he receive any response from the authorities nor was he appointed despite his claim to have scored more marks in the 10^thclass vis-à-vis that obtained by private respondent No.6. Hence, being aggrieved with such inaction of the authorities, the applicant has approached this Tribunal praying for the aforementioned relief.

3. The applicant would advance the following grounds in support his claim:-

(i) That he is the most meritorious among all the candidates as he has scored 85% marks in his 10^thClass,

4

whereas the appointee private respondent No.6 has scored only 84% marks in his 10^thclass examination.

(ii) That, the applicant is a permanent resident of the address noted in this original application, and, hence he would claim to be nearest to the village post office at Nathuwana and would stake his claim as the most suitable candidate for the post of GDS.

Private respondent No.6, however, resides at Bhadra, which is about 150 km from Nathuwana and hence the selection of the private respondent overriding the claim of the applicant is an arbitrary action.

(iii) That, despite his representation dated 16.04.2014, the authorities have chosen not to respond to his prayer and he has been deprived of appointment to the post of GDS despite his entitlement to the same.

4. The respondents, per contra, would rebut the claim of the applicant in their following grounds:-

(i) That, vide notification dated 15.01.2014, a post of Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Carrier/Mail Deliverer (GDS MC/MD) was advertised for the Gram Post Office Nathwala under the Udhyog Vihar SO.

(ii) That, selection to the post of GDS MC/MD was to be made on the basis of merit position in the Matriculation examination.

5

(iii) That the applicant claims to have had qualified in the Secondary School Examination from Council of Secondary Education, Mohali. As per the guidelines furnished by the respondent authority and the list of the Boards of Secondary and Senior Secondary Education in India as published by the Ministry of Human Resources Development (MHRD), Government of India, there is no mention of any Council of Secondary Education, Mohali.

(iv) That, this Tribunal had initially granted an interim relief on 27^thMay, 2014 to maintain status quo for the next fortnight on the basis of the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that no appointee has joined the post of GDS till such date. On 01.02.2015, however, based on submissions of the respondents that, respondent No.6 had already joined his duties on 29.05.2014, the IR dated 27.05.2014 was modified by this Tribunal to the extent that the appointment of private respondent No.6 shall be subject to the final outcome of the OA.

(v) That, private respondent No.6 continues to discharge his duties as GDS at the said Nathuwala post office and accordingly the applicant's claim deserved to be dismissed in limine.

5. Having heard the rival contentions, and, having examined the documents available on record, this Tribunal is of the

6

considered opinion that the sole issue for adjudication in this OA is whether the applicant did possess such qualifications as notified in the vacancy circular dated 15.01.2014 at Annexure- A/2 to the OA.

6. At the outset, therefore, it would be necessary to refer to the said vacancy circular which is reproduced as under:-

7

Upon examination of such notification, it appears that the eligibility was a minimum of 8^thpass with priority to those who have qualified in the 10^thclass. And that, such qualifications were to be verified on the basis of mark sheets and the educational qualifications obtained from the Boards/Councils recognized by the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India.

The applicant has furnished in support, the mark sheet of his Secondary School Examination for the year 2008-2009 obtained from the Council of Secondary Education, Mohali at Annexure-A/6 to the OA, which is reproduced as under:-

"COUNCIL OF SECONDARY EDUCATION MOHALI

MARKS STATEMENT

SECONDARY SCHOOL EXAMINATION

S.No.233329 2008-2009 Name PRADEEP KUMAR Roll No.23863 Mother's Name VIMLA DEVI Father's Name SADI RAM

Date of Birth 05/01/1987 School A-102 Mohali International Institute Mohali

Abbreviations:- Result PASS

AB-Absent in the subjects

PR-Practical

IA-Internal Assessment

SYC Subject yet to clear

Sd/-

Mohali Signature

Dated 12/05/2009"

8

The respondents have on the other hand, furnished at R/1(i) to their reply, a direction from office of respondent No.2, contained in a set of Guidelines-2012 which comprises a list of Boards/Councils to verify equivalence with that of the Rajasthan Education Board. The list of Boards/Councils annexed to such guidelines, however, neither enlists nor includes any such Council of Secondary Education, Mohali.

Further, as per Annexure-R/1 (ii) to the reply, a list of Boards of Secondary and Senior Secondary School Education in India as published by the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India has been enclosed. Although there is a reference to Punjab School Education Board at Mohali established in 1969, there is no enlistment of the Council of Secondary Education, Mohali.

The respondents have also annexed a list of Boards of School Education recognised by Councils of Boards Education in India but once again the Council of Secondary Education, Mohali finds no inclusion therein.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant would vociferously urge that directions be issued to the respondents to decide on the applicant's representation dated 16.04.2014 at Annexure-A/6 to the OA. The respondents have, however, disclosed their reasons as to why the applicant's prayer could not be considered. Respondents have clearly stated that, as Council of

9

Secondary Education, Mohali from where the applicant claims to have obtained his 10^thclass marksheet, is not recognised either by the Guidelines issued in the year 2012 by the Rajasthan Government or in the list of Boards and Councils notified by the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India, or by the Council of Boards Education in India, the applicant does not meet the eligibility requirements. Accordingly, given the reasons adduced by the respondents, any directions to dispose of the applicant's representation would be of no consequence.

8. It is a settled principle of law that requisite qualifications for an appointment are to be expressly published and laid down to the candidates. The authorities have published the case in their notification 15.01.2014.

The Hon'ble Apex Court, in Union of India vs. Joginder Singh, reported in 1996 (1) SLR 132, had held that for being eligible, a candidate must possess the currently prescribed qualifications. Further, as held in Rajesh Kumar Trivedi vs. State of UP reported in 2020 2 SCC 167, in a given situation, qualification eligibility may be satisfied by more than one certificate, that recruitment in deviation of published qualifications would amount to arbitrary exercise of power, which would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and that deviation, if any, must itself be applied with reasons.

10

In the instant matter, this Tribunal would infer that the notification specifically prescribed that only such educational qualifications and marksheets would be accepted as issued by the Boards/ Councils of Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India. Such lists of MHRD as annexed at R/1 (ii) to the reply do not include the name of the Council of Secondary Education, Mohali, wherefrom the applicant claims to have passed his 10^thclass examination. Applying a deviation principle based on reasonableness of equivalence, the Secondary Education Board, Rajasthan has issued Guidelines in 2012 on equivalence with Matriculation examination. The Council of Secondary Education, Mohali fails to find any mention therein.

Accordingly, the applicant having failed to have proved that his marksheet or academic qualifications was indeed issued by the Boards/Councils recognised by the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India, this Tribunal would conclude that there is no merit in the prayer of the applicant and deserves to be dismissed accordingly. The OA is, therefore, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

(Dr. NANDITA CHATTERJEE) (JASMINE AHMED)

MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)

rss