C. Alagu and Another Union of India Rep. by the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Tiruchirappalli Division, Trichy - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/939451
CourtCentral Administrative Tribunal CAT Madras
Decided OnApr-02-2012
Case NumberORIGINAL APPLICATION NOS.694 AND 695 OF 2010
JudgeTHE HONOURABLE MR. B. VENKATESWARA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. R. SATAPATHY, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Advocates:For the Applicants: M/s. P. Rajendran, Advocate. For the Respondent : S. Panneerselvam, M. Venkateswararan, Advocates.
Excerpt:
hon'ble mr. r. satapathy, administrative member since the issue involved in both these applications is similar and the relief sought for is also identical, these applications were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. these applications have been filed under section 19 of the administrative tribunals act, 1985 seeking the following relief: "to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the respondent in order no.b6/8/2009 dated 14.5.2010(in oa 694/2010) and dated 28.5.2009(in respect of oa 695/2010) and quash the same and direct the respondent to conduct a special examination for the applicant for appointment to the post of postman considering him as being within the prescribed age limit and take all further steps relating to appointment as postman." 3. learned counsel for the applicants states that the issue involved in these applications is the cut off date for deciding the age limit for the gds who are seeking promotion to the cadre of postman for vacancies of both departmental and direct recruitment quota for the year 2009. a notification in this connection was issued by the respondent on 18.2.2010 and the applicants have applied for the said post. however, the respondent has rejected the application of the applicant in oa 694 of 2010 stating that he was overaged i.e. 53 years and 11 days as on 1.7.2010 and in respect of the applicant in oa 695 of 2010, he was overaged by 53 years and 1 month as on 1.7.2010. the learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the crucial date regarding the age qualification is with regard to the year of vacancy or year of selection has been decided by the full bench of this tribunal in o.a.755 of 2009 in its order dated 20.8.2010. he has also brought to our notice the order of the chandigarh bench of this tribunal in o.a.621/ch/2005 dated 10.8.2006 (sanjeev kumar sharma vs. union of india and ors.-2006(3)atj 262). in the said cases, it was held that the year of vacancy will be taken into account for determining the eligibility of the age and therefore the learned counsel sought that the oas should be allowed. 4. on notice the respondents have entered appearance filed a reply statement stating that they have followed the recruitment rules. the relevant provisions of the recruitment rules is extracted below: "the age limit for the gds to appear for the postman examination was notified as oc-50; obc-53; sc/st-55 as on 1.7.2010." respondent further states that since the applicant who belong to obc category have already crossed the age limit, their applications cannot be entertained and the oas are to be dismissed. 5. we have considered the arguments of the learned counsel on both sides and perused the pleadings and the records. 6. the consistent opinion of the various benches of this tribunal and also the full bench order of this tribunal in o.a.  755 of 2009 which after considering various judgments of the hon'ble supreme court has held in para 7 of the order as follows: "in the light of the discussions as referred to above, the question of law which is raised before us is answered to the effect that determining the eligibility with regard to the age qualification is with reference to the year of vacancy" the above said decision of the full bench has been followed by this tribunal in all subsequent cases. 7. in the instant case, the applicants have applied for the examination for the post of postman in response to the notification dated 18.2.2010 for the vacancies of the year 2009. therefore, applying the principal enunciated above with regard to the age, the cut off date should be 1.7.2009 and not 1.7.2010. however, the respondents have taken into account 1.7.2010 and rejected the case of both the applicants. such action on the part of the respondents is not sustainable in view of the orders of the full bench of this tribunal cited supra. therefore, the impugned orders dated 14.5.2010 (in oa 694/2010 and 26.5.2010(in oa 695/2010) are liable to be set aside and we do so. 8. the respondents have placed reliance on the orders of the hon'ble high court in w.p. no.14846 of 2009 dated 10.8.2010. we have perused the said judgment. the issue involved in the said w.p. is with regard to the claim of reserved candidates who has competed for ur vacancies whereas in the present case, the issue involved is the cut off date on which the eligibility with regard to the age will have to be determined for promotion of gds to the post of postman. therefore, the judgment of the hon'ble high court relied on by the respondents is not applicable to the facts of this case. 9. for the aforesaid reasons and discussions, we allow both the oas and direct the respondent to conduct a supplementary examination for the applicants herein for the vacancy of the year 2009 fixing the cut off date as 1.7.2009 with regard to the age of eligibility. the above exercise shall be complied with within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. in the circumstances, no order as to costs.
Judgment:

Hon'ble Mr. R. Satapathy, Administrative Member

Since the issue involved in both these applications is similar and the relief sought for is also identical, these applications were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. These applications have been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:

"to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the respondent in Order No.B6/8/2009 dated 14.5.2010(in OA 694/2010) and dated 28.5.2009(in respect of OA 695/2010) and quash the same and direct the respondent to conduct a special examination for the applicant for appointment to the post of Postman considering him as being within the prescribed age limit and take all further steps relating to appointment as Postman."

3. Learned counsel for the applicants states that the issue involved in these applications is the cut off date for deciding the age limit for the GDS who are seeking promotion to the cadre of Postman for vacancies of both departmental and direct recruitment quota for the year 2009. A Notification in this connection was issued by the respondent on 18.2.2010 and the applicants have applied for the said post. However, the respondent has rejected the application of the applicant in OA 694 of 2010 stating that he was overaged i.e. 53 years and 11 days as on 1.7.2010 and in respect of the applicant in OA 695 of 2010, he was overaged by 53 years and 1 month as on 1.7.2010. The learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the crucial date regarding the age qualification is with regard to the year of vacancy or year of selection has been decided by the Full Bench of this Tribunal in O.A.755 of 2009 in its order dated 20.8.2010. He has also brought to our notice the order of the Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal in O.A.621/CH/2005 dated 10.8.2006 (Sanjeev Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India and Ors.-2006(3)ATJ 262). In the said cases, it was held that the year of vacancy will be taken into account for determining the eligibility of the age and therefore the learned counsel sought that the OAs should be allowed.

4. On notice the respondents have entered appearance filed a reply statement stating that they have followed the Recruitment Rules. The relevant provisions of the Recruitment Rules is extracted below:

"The age limit for the GDS to appear for the Postman Examination was notified as OC-50; OBC-53; SC/ST-55 as on 1.7.2010."

Respondent further states that since the applicant who belong to OBC category have already crossed the age limit, their applications cannot be entertained and the OAs are to be dismissed.

5. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel on both sides and perused the pleadings and the records.

6. The consistent opinion of the various Benches of this Tribunal and also the Full Bench order of this Tribunal in O.A.  755 of 2009 which after considering various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in para 7 of the order as follows:

"In the light of the discussions as referred to above, the question of law which is raised before us is answered to the effect that determining the eligibility with regard to the age qualification is with reference to the year of vacancy"

The above said decision of the Full Bench has been followed by this Tribunal in all subsequent cases.

7. In the instant case, the applicants have applied for the Examination for the post of Postman in response to the Notification dated 18.2.2010 for the vacancies of the year 2009. Therefore, applying the principal enunciated above with regard to the age, the cut off date should be 1.7.2009 and not 1.7.2010. However, the respondents have taken into account 1.7.2010 and rejected the case of both the applicants. Such action on the part of the respondents is not sustainable in view of the orders of the Full Bench of this Tribunal cited supra. Therefore, the impugned orders dated 14.5.2010 (in OA 694/2010 and 26.5.2010(in OA 695/2010) are liable to be set aside and we do so.

8. The respondents have placed reliance on the orders of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P. No.14846 of 2009 dated 10.8.2010. We have perused the said judgment. The issue involved in the said W.P. is with regard to the claim of reserved candidates who has competed for UR vacancies whereas in the present case, the issue involved is the cut off date on which the eligibility with regard to the age will have to be determined for promotion of GDS to the post of Postman. Therefore, the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court relied on by the respondents is not applicable to the facts of this case.

9. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, we allow both the OAs and direct the respondent to conduct a supplementary examination for the applicants herein for the vacancy of the year 2009 fixing the cut off date as 1.7.2009 with regard to the age of eligibility. The above exercise shall be complied with within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the circumstances, no order as to costs.