High Court of KeralaDivision BenchPetitions allowed; interim orders set aside; Tr...
OP (CAT) Nos.72/2020, 76/2020 & 81/2020, High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam
Case / Petition Number:OP (CAT) Nos.72, 76 & 81/2020
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- A. M. Shaffique
- Gopinath P.
- Judgment Date
- 2020-06-24
- Court Decision / Holding
- The petitions are allowed. The court set aside the interim orders dated 29-10-2019, 20-12-2019 and 7-2-2020 in OA 762 of 2019 and OA 956 of 2019. It held that the Tribunal should not have issued blanket interim relief and that the Department’s decision to conduct a unified centralised examination for Category-I and Category-II need not be fatal to the recruitment process. The Tribunal is free to decide the original applications on merits without being constrained by observations in this judgment. The court emphasized that the interim relief should sub-serve the interests of all stakeholders, and that the selection process need not be halted in its entirety.
- Final Disposition
- Petitions allowed; interim orders set aside; Tribunal to decide merits; selection process not to be permanently stayed; Observations are not about merits.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Sharafunnisa P.C.
- Premadas A.K.
- Mohanan K.
- P. R. Anil Kumar
- Prasanth P.P.
- Arundhathy Gayathry K
Respondents
- Union of India
- The Chief Postmaster General, Kerala Circle
- Director (DE), Directorate of Postal Service
- S. Sreekanth
- P. K. Haridas
- K. K. Radhakrishnan
- Abhilash K. Aravind
- V. G. Ratheesh
- S. SreeraJ
- Sajeevan Rayaroth
- Vineetha C.H.
- Mini V.K.
- Sijila V.V.
- Shanoj C.M.
- Sona Sasidharan
- Arundhathy Gayathry K
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- •
Counsels for Respondents
- • Shri P. Vijayakumar, ASG of India
- • M. A. Shafik
Case Synopsis & Summary
This judgment deals with three original petitions (OP (CAT) Nos. 72/2020, 76/2020 and 81/2020) challenging interim orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, that stayed the selection process under the Department of Posts’ Recruitment Rules, 2015 for Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant, and related LDCE (Limited Departmental Competitive Examination) arrangements. The petitions frame a common issue: whether the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) for Category-1 (Postman, Mail Guard, Despatch Rider, Multi Tasking Staff) promoting to PA/SA should be identical to the competitive examination for Category-2 (Gramin Dak Sevaks) and whether the interim stay prevented the Department from completing the recruitment process. The Court outlines that LDCE is intended to fill 50% of PA/SA posts via promotion from Category-1, with remaining vacancies to be filled from Category-2 through a centralized examination; the syllabus and pattern were aligned between categories in 2019. The Tribunal stayed the process; the petitioners argued that the same paper and removal of a skill test contradicted the distinct roles and eligibility. The Bench, applying settled interim-relief principles, notes the broader impact, the number of candidates and the fact that most applicants had already qualified, and that blanket stays risk irreparable harm. It holds that blanket interim relief was unwarranted, sets aside the interim orders, and allows the petitions to proceed on merits while leaving main issues to be decided by the Tribunal.
Provisions of Law Cited
Constitution of India, Articles 226/227Postal Assistant and Sorting Assistant Group 'C' Non-Gazetted Recruitment Rules, 2015
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Balance between irreparable injury and hardship in interim relief; authorities may not grant blanket stay (interim relief principle)
- Those participating in a recruitment process cannot readily challenge the process afterwards; Court should avoid unnecessary interference with selection processes
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The applicants contended that the LDCE for Category-1 (promotion through LDCE) should be distinct in pattern and eligibility from the Category-2 examination; using the same question paper and a centralized pattern blurs the essential difference between promotional and direct recruitment. They argued the skill test, expected for some years, should be retained; decentralization originally planned for LDCE (Category-I) vs centralization for Category-II was altered by notifications to centralize both; the challenge is that the identical exam papers for both categories prejudice Category-I candidates and undermine the intended 50-50 promotion-direct mix. They submitted that the interim stay was illegal and caused irreparable injury to those awaiting postings; they urged the Tribunal to adopt a calibrated approach rather than a blanket stay and to allow the process to proceed subject to merit-based scrutiny.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents opposed blanket interim relief, arguing that the Department had the right to standardize examinations for consistency, and that the LDCE and central examination could share syllabus and pattern where the roles and eligibility between categories converge in the promotional pipeline. They highlighted that the examination was conducted for substantial vacancies (about 144) with a large candidate pool and that 9 of 10 petitioners had qualified, undermining the argument that the process was arbitrary. They submitted that the Tribunal’s interim orders impeded the recruitment for others and that the standardization of assessment did not violate recruitment rules; the court should not fetter the Department’s prerogative to fix the competitive framework, while preserving the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits.
Cited Precedents (1)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Bombay Environmental Action Group | (2005) 5 SCC 61 | Positive | Cited for the principle of balancing hardship and irreparable injury in interim relief; supports avoiding blanket stay and ensuring that interim measures do not derail the recruitment process unnecessarily. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against OP (CAT) Nos.72/2020, 76/2020 & 81/2020, High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.
# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
**PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE**
**&**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.**
**WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 3RD ASHADHA, 1942**
**OP (CAT).No.72 OF 2020**
**AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07-02-2020 IN OA 956/2019 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH**
## **PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS IN O.A.:**
- **1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, M/O.COMMUNICATION AND IT, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, NEW DELHI-110 001**
- **2 THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, KERALA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033**
- **3 THE DIRECTOR (DE) DIRECTORATE OF POSTAL SERVICE, DAK BHAVAN, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI-110 001 BY ADV. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA**
## **RESPONDENTS/APPLICANTS IN O.A.:**
- **1 SHARAFUNNISA.P.C D/O. LATE NALLAKOYA P.O., POSTMAN, BURNACHERRY P.O., KANNUR DIVISION, PERMANENTLY, RESIDING AT PURACKALACHERTTA HOUSE, AMINI, UTL-682 552**
- **2 PREMADAS.A.K., S/O. APPUKUTTY GUPTAN, POSTMAN, SREEKRISHNAPURAM POST OFFICE, PALAKKAD DIVISION, RESIDING AT ACHAPATHKALAM, DEVANJANAM, SREEKRISHNAPURAM, PALAKKAD-679 513**
- **3 MOHANAN.K., S/O. RAGHAVAN.B., POSTMAN, MATTUL P.O., KANNUR DIVISION, RESIDING AT KAZHUTHOLAN HOUSE, MATTUAL P.O., KANNUR-670 302**
OP (CAT) Nos.72, 76 & 81/2020
-2-
- **4 P.R.ANILKUMAR, S/O. P.V.RAVEENDRAN ACHARY, POSTMAN, KURIANNUR SORTING OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA DIVISION, RESIDING AT KURUVANKUZHY, PULLAD P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA-689 548**
**5 PRASANTH.P.P., S/O. ANANDAN NAMBIAR T.V., POSTMAN, VADAKARA P.O., KOZHIKODE DIVISION, RESIDING AT PUTHANPURAYIL HOUSE, VATAYAM, KOZHIKODE-673 507**
**THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-06-2020, ALONG WITH OP (CAT).76/2020, OP (CAT).81/2020, THE COURT ON 2406-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
OP (CAT) Nos.72, 76 & 81/2020
-3-
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE**
## **&**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.**
**WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 3RD ASHADHA, 1942**
## **OP (CAT).No.76 OF 2020**
**AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 762/2019 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH**
## **PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 3 & 4 IN OA:**
- **1 MUKESH.M MTS, SASTHAMCOTTA-690 521, RESIDING AT MAKESH BHAVANAM, PORUVAZHY NORTH, CHATHAKULAM-690 520,**
- **2 DEEPAK RAJ MTS, KOTTARAKARA H.O., KOTTARAKARA-691 506, RESIDING AT MOHANA SADANAM, THRIKKANMANGAL, KOTTARAKARA-691 506.**
- **BY ADV. SRI.VISHNU S.CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL**
## **RESPONDENTS/APPLICANTS IN OA & REPONDENTS 1,2,5 TO 12 IN OA:**
- **1 S.SREEKANTH AGED 36 YEARS, S/O P.G.SASI, POSTMAN, P.D.HILLS, KOTTAYAM-686 560, RESIDING AT SREESADAAM, KURAVILANGAD P.O. KOTTAYAM-686 633.**
- **2 P.K.HARIDAS, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O P.K.JANARDHANAN NAMBIAR, POSTMAN, PAYYANUR P.O.KANNUR-670 307, RESIDING AT HARIPURAM, VELLUR P.O.PAYYANNUR, KANNUR-670 307.**
- **3 K.K.RADHAKRISHNAN AGED 38 YEARS, S/O K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, POSTMAN, EDAPPAL P.O.MALAPPURAM-679 571, RESIDING AT KANJIRAMKAD HOUSE, NADUVATTOM P.O.KUTTIPURAM (VIA), MALAPPURAM-679 571.**
OP (CAT) Nos.72, 76 & 81/2020
-4-
- **4 ABHILASH K. ARAVIND AGED 36 YEARS, S/O K.G.ARAVINDAKSHAN NAIR, POSTMAN, HPO ERNAKULAM, RESIDING AT SREESAILAM, KOCHUPURACKAL HOUSE, PAINGARAPILLY P.O. MULANTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 314.**
- **5 V.G. RATHEESH AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.V.A. GOPALAN, POSTMAN, CSEZ PO, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, RESIDING AT VAZHAKKAPILLY HOUSE, VENNALA P O, COCHIN-682028,**
- **6 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POSTS, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND IT, SANCHAR BHAWAN, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI-110001.**
- **7 THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL, KERALA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.**
- **8 R.S. SREERAJ AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.M. SREEDHARAN NAIR, POSTMAN, SASTHAMANGALAM S O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM SOUTH DIVISION-695010, RESIDING AT KALLUVETTAMIUZHI VEEDU, VITHURA P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695551.**
**9 SAJEEVAN RAYAROTH POSTMAN, CHERAKKAA P O, THALASSERY-670104, RESIDING AT RAJEEVAM, PATHIRIYAD P O, PINARAY VIA, KANNUR-670741,**
- **10 VINEETHA C H POSTMAN, ERANHOLI P O, THALASSERY-670107, RESIDING AT SUVITHAM NALUTHARA P O, KANNUR-673320,**
- **11 MINI V.K POSTMAN, THALASSERY HO 670101, RESIDING AT VADAKKEKARAMMAL HOUSE, CHITTARIPARAMBA P O, KANNUR-670650.**
- **12 SIJILA V.V POSTMAN, PERAVOOR PO, 670673, RESIDING AT MUNDAYADAN HOUSE, ALATHUPARAMBA, KOSAVANVAYAL P O, IRIKKUR, KANNUR-670593,**
- **13 SHANOJ C M POSTMAN, MANANTHAVADY-670645, RESIDING AT CHOONDAPUZHAKKAL HOUSE, AGRAHARAM, MANANTHAVADY PO, WAYANAD-670645,**
OP (CAT) Nos.72, 76 & 81/2020 -5-
|**14**|**SONA SASIDHARAN**|
|---|---|
||**MTS, KOLLAM HEAD POST OFFICE, KOLLAM-691001,**|
||**RESIDING AT S.S. BHAVAN, VELICHIKKALA,**|
||**ADICHANALLOOR, KOLLAM-681573,**|
|**15**|**ARUNDHATHY GAYATHRY K**|
||**MTS, KARUNAGAPALLY H-O, 690518,**|
||**RESIDING AT GAYATHY MANDIRAM, MUZHANGODI,**|
||**THODIYOOR, KARUNAGAPPALLY - 690523.**|
**R6-7 BY ADV. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA SRI. M.A. SHAFIK FOR RESPONDENTS**
**THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-06-2020, ALONG WITH OP (CAT).72/2020, OP (CAT).81/2020, THE COURT ON 2406-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
OP (CAT) Nos.72, 76 & 81/2020
-6-
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE**
## **&**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.**
**WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 3RD ASHADHA, 1942**
## **OP (CAT).No.81 OF 2020**
**AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07-02-2020 IN OA 762/2019 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH**
## **PETITIONER/RESPONDENT No.12:**
**ARUNDHATHY GAYATHRY K., AGED 31 YEARS, W/O.AJITHKUMAR, MULTI TASKING STAFF (MTS), KARUNGAPPALLY H.O.690 518 RESIDING AT GAYATHY MANDIRAM, MUZHANGODI, THODIYOOR, KARUNAGAPPALLY - 690 523.**
**BY ADV. SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY**
## **RESPONDENTS/APPLICANTS & OTHER RESPONDENTS IN O.A.:**
**1 S.SREEKANTH, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.P.G.SASI, POSTMAN, P.D.HILLS, KOTTAYAM - 686 560, RESIDING AT SREESADAAM, KURAVILANGAD P.O., KOTTYAM - 686 633, PHONE 9198472 01959.**
**2 P.K.HARIDAS, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.P.K.JANARDHANAN NAMBIAR, POSTMAN, PAYYANNUR P.O., KANNUR - 670 307, RESIDING AT HARIPURAM, VELLUR P.O., PAYYANNUR, KANNUR- 670 307. PHONE 91 9745508205.**
**3 K.K.RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, POSTMAN, EDAPPAL P.O., MALAPPURAM - 679 571, RESIDING AT KANJIRAMKAD HOUSE, NADUVATTOM P.O., KUTTIPURAM (VIA), MALAPPURAM - 679 571, PHONE 91 9447697961.**
**4 ABHILASH K.ARAVIND, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.K.G.ARAVINDAKSHAN NAIR, POSTMAN, HPO ERNAKULAM, RESIDING AT SREESAILAM, KOCHUPURAKL HOUSE, PAINGARAPILLY P.O., MULANTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 314, PHONE 91 9496654561.**
OP (CAT) Nos.72, 76 & 81/2020 -7-
- **5 V.G.RATHEESH,**
- **AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.V.A.GOPALAN, POSTMAN, CSEZ P.O., KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, RESIDING AT VAZHAKKAPILLY HOUSE, VENNALA P.O., COCHIN - 682 028, PHONE 919746145734.**
- **6 UNION OF INDIA,**
- **REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POSTS, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND IT, SANCHAR BHAWAN, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI - 110 001.**
- **7 THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL, KERALA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033.**
- **8 MAKESH M., MTS, SASTHAMCOTTA - 690 521, RESIDING AT MAKESH BHAVANAM, PORUVAZHY NORTH, CHATHAKULAM - 690 520, MOB.NO.9995824436.**
**9 DEEPAK RAJ, MTS, KOTTARAKKARA H.O., KOTTARAKARA - 691 506, RESIDING AT MOHANA SADANAM, THRIKKANMANGAL, KOTTARAKARA - 691506, MOB NO.8590448101.**
- **10 R.S.SREERAJ, S/O.M.SREEDHARAN NAIR, AGED 37 YEARS, POSTMAN, SASTHAMANGALAM S.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, SOUTH DIVISION - 695 010, RESIDING AT KALLUVETTAMIUZHI VEEDU, VITHURA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695 551.**
- **11 SAJEEVAN RAYAROTH, POSTMAN, CHERAKKAA P.O., THALASSERY - 670 104, RESIDING AT RAJEEVAM, PATHIRIYAD P.O., PINARAY VIA., KANNUR - 670 741, MOB NO.9747619530.**
- **12 VINEETHA C.H., POSTMAN, ERANHOLI P.O., THALASSERY - 670 107, RESIDING AT SUVITHAM, NALUTHARA P.O., KANNUR - 673 320, MOB NO.9946345706.**
- **13 MINI V.K., POSTMAN, THALASSERY H.O. - 670 101, RESIDING AT VADAKKEKARAMMAL HOUSE, CHITTARIPARAMBA P.O., KANNUR - 670 650, MOB. NO.8547696230.**
- **14 SIJILA V.V., POSTMAN, PERAVOOR P.O. - 670 673, RESIDING AT MUNDAYADAN HOUSE, ALATHUPARAMBA, KOSAVANVAYAL P.O., IRIKKUR, KANNUR - 670 592, MOB NO.9961608716.**
OP (CAT) Nos.72, 76 & 81/2020
-8-
**15 SHANOJ C.M., POSTMAN, MANANTHAVADY - 670 645, RESIDING AT CHOONDAPUZHAKKAL HOUSE, AGRAHARAM, MANANTHAVADY P.O., WAYANAD - 670 645, MOB NO.9961970418. 16 SONA SASIDHARAN, MTS, KOLLA HEAD POST OFFICE, KOLLAM - 691 001, RESIDING AT S.S.BHAVAN, VELICHIKKALA, ADICHANALLOOR, KOLLAM -691 573, MOB NO.9995824436. R6-7 BY ADV. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA SRI. M.A.SHAFIK FOR RESPONDENTS**
**THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-06-2020, ALONG WITH OP (CAT).72/2020, OP (CAT).76/2020, THE COURT ON 2406-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
OP (CAT) Nos.72, 76 & 81/2020
-9-
## J U D G M E N T
## Dated this the 24[th] day of June 2020
## Gopinath, J.
Common questions and issues arise in these 3 original petitions which are filed challenging interim orders issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Ernakulam Bench. In OP (CAT) Nos.76 & 81/2020, the interim orders under challenge are those issued in OA No.762/2019 while in OP (CAT) No.72/2020 the interim orders under challenge are those issued in OA No.956/2019. The orders under challenge are practically identical in terms. The orders in question are:-
|1.|Order dated 29.10.2019 in O.A 762/2019|Challenged in O.P (CAT)<br>76 & 81/2020|
|---|---|---|
|2.|Order dated 20.12.2019 in O.A 762/2019|Challenged in O.P (CAT)<br>76 & 81/2020|
|3.|Order dated 7.2.2020 in O.A 762/2019|Challenged in O.P (CAT)<br>76 & 81/2020|
|4.|Order dated 1.1.2020 in O.A 956/2019|Challenged in O.P<br>(CAT)72/2020|
|5.|Order dated 7.2.2020 in O.A 956/2019|Challenged in O.P<br>(CAT)72/2020|
2. We are concerned here with the validity of an examination conducted in terms of the Department of Posts (Postal Assistant and
Sorting Assistant 'Group-C' Non-gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Recruitment Rules'). Under those Rules, Postman / Mail Guard / Despatch Rider and Multi Tasking Staff (MTS) are
OP (CAT) Nos.72, 76 & 81/2020
-10-
entitled to be considered for promotion against 50% of the posts of Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant through a Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) failing which posts will be filled up by direct recruitment of Gramin Dak Sevaks, again through a Competitive Examination. The Rules also deal with the eligibility of other categories to be considered for appointment if the posts are not filled up in the manner indicated above. However we are not concerned with those categories and therefore no attempt is made to elaborate on the same. For the sake of brevity we will refer to those holding the posts of Postman / Mail Guard / Despatch Rider and Multi Tasking Staff (MTS) as **‘Category 1’** and Gramin Dak Sevaks as **‘Category 2’** . The Tribunal initially passed orders on 29-102019, in O.A 762/2019, directing that the Department shall not publish the results of the examination in respect of category-I _'in respect of the applicants'_ till the next date of posting. Thereafter on applications being filed by contesting respondents for allowing the declaration of results etc., the order dated 20.12.2019 in O.A 762/2019 was passed declining the prayer for declaration of results etc.. Thereafter an order, in terms identical to the orders dated 29-10-2019 in O.A 762/2019, was passed in O.A 965/2019 also(order dated 1.1.2020 in O.A 956/2019). On the allegation raised before the Tribunal that the results had been published in spite of interim orders dated 29-10-2019/1.1.2020 and applications being filed to restrain the process of selection, the Tribunal passed a further interim order
OP (CAT) Nos.72, 76 & 81/2020
-11-
in both the original applications (OA Nos.762/2019 & 956/2019) staying the selection process for category-I in its entirety.
3. The main prayers before the Tribunal by the applicants in the respective cases were to cancel the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination for promotion to the post of Postal Assistant / Sorting Assistant from Category-1. The examination was notified in terms of a notification bearing No.Rectt/10-3/2019 dated 05-08-2019. The total number of anticipated vacancies for which the examination was proposed to be held was indicated to be 144. The annual calendar for the examination which was published by the Department on 23-04-2019 indicated that while LDCE for Category-1 would be a de-centralized examination, the examination for recruitment from the category of Gramin Dak Sevak will be a centralized examination. However, it is pointed out that the terms of the calendar of examination dated 23-04-2019 was modified subsequently by another notification issued on 31-05-2019. The modified stipulation provided that LDCE for Category-1 as well as the competitive examinations for Category-2 would both be centralized examinations.
4. On 10-05-2019 the Department of Posts published the revised syllabus and pattern of examination which was one and the same for the aspirants in Category-1 and for the aspirants in Category-2 (Gramin Dak Sevaks who would be competing for the unfilled vacancies for previous years and also for the current year through the competitive examination). It
OP (CAT) Nos.72, 76 & 81/2020
-12-
is stated before us that the examination for those in Category-1 was proposed to be conducted for filling up the vacancies arising between 0101-2019 and 31-12-2019 (the 144 vacancies noticed above). The vacancies to be filled up from Category-2 (Gramin Dak Sevaks) were the unfilled vacancies for the year 2015-2016 to 2019. The vacancies announced in that category was 177. We are not concerned here with the examination being conducted for the above 177 vacancies. The examination was conducted on 15-09-2019 for both categories i.e., Category-I and for Category-II.
5. The grievance projected by the applicants before the Tribunal was that the promotion test or LDCE for recruitment of Postal Assistant / Sorting Assistant by promotion from Category-I should not be identical to the examination conducted for Gramin Das Sevak who are entitled to compete for selection only through direct recruitment in terms of the provisions contained in column 10 of the Rules. It was pointed out on behalf of the applicants before the Tribunal that the original calendar for examinations proposed a decentralized examination for Category-I while providing for a Centralized examination for aspirants in Category-II. It is their case that through a letter dated 05-08-2019, the LDCE for Category-I was scheduled to be conducted on 15-09-2019. It is stated that this examination was in respect of vacancies arising from 01-01-2019 to 31-122019. It is stated that the examination for Category-II in respect of
OP (CAT) Nos.72, 76 & 81/2020
-13-
vacancies arising from 2015-2016 to 2018 was scheduled to be held on 1407-2019 and that such examination was so conducted on 14-07-2019. However, before the results were announced the said examination was canceled and rescheduled on 15-9-2019.
6. The applicants before the Tribunal allege that the examinations for Category-I and Category-II are distinct and different on account of the fact that one (LDCE) is an eligibility test for promotion while the other is a competitive examination much like a fresh recruitment test for direct recruitment. According to them the conduct of the examination using the same question paper for both categories i.e., Category-I and Category-II mentioned above was clearly illegal as the standard expected of the two groups was clearly distinct and different. There seems to be a considerable dispute regarding the conduct of the skill test also. While the applicants alleged that the skill test was done away with, the petitioners before us including the Department vehemently contend that the skill test was part of the syllabus for the examination this year and therefore the skill test is liable to be conducted.
7. In a matter like this, where the challenge is made to interim orders granted by the Tribunal, we would normally be extremely hesitant to interfere under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. The impugned interim orders issued by the Tribunal in all these cases interdict the Department from proceeding with the selection. The petitioners in these
OP (CAT) Nos.72, 76 & 81/2020
-14-
Original Petitions (including the Union of India and the Postal Department) allege that the Tribunal should not have passed any interim orders, in the facts and circumstances of the case, and should have permitted the Department to complete the selection process. It is their case that though, originally, the LDCE for selection from Category-I was intended to be a decentralized examination by a further notification dated 31-05-2019, the examinations for both Category-I and Category-II were scheduled to be held as centralized examinations. It is the specific case of the petitioners before us that the notification published for the conduct of examination had clearly indicated the pattern and syllabus of the examination and that the applicants before the Tribunal had willingly participated in the examination conducted on 15-09-2019 and they could not later turn around and challenge the manner in which the examinations were conducted after knowing that they were not successful in the examinations. It is specifically pointed out that the challenge was raised only after the answer keys were published by the Department. The petitioners before us also allege that the original application was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. They claim that there is no legal impediment in using the same yardstick for determining the eligibility of those in Category-I and Category-II as admittedly the persons in Category-I and those in Category-II are required to undertake identical responsibilities when they are promoted as Postal Assistant / Sorting Assistant. As far as the Data Entry test is concerned, it
OP (CAT) Nos.72, 76 & 81/2020
-15-
is their case that merely because the skill test was exempted for the examination held in the year 2018 there is no basis for the applicants before the Tribunal to urge that skill test should not be conducted this year as well. It is submitted that the final results of the examination have not yet been published as the same can be done only after the completion of all tests including the skill test. It is the case of the petitioners before us that they are seriously prejudiced by the interim orders of the Tribunal on account of the fact that except in the State of Jammu & Kashmir and Kerala the results have already been published and since the recruitment process for those persons in Category-II has not been stayed by the Tribunal, those working as their subordinates will end up obtaining promotion over and above those in Category-I.
8. We have considered the contentions raised. Interim orders are granted on the basis of considerations that are well settled. In _**Bombay**_
## _**Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Bombay Environmental Action Group**_ -
(2005) 5 SCC 61 the Supreme Court observed:-
_“24. The courts, however, have to strike a balance between two extreme positions viz. whether the writ petition would itself become infructuous if interim order is refused, on the one hand, and the enormity of losses and hardships which may be suffered by others if an interim order is granted, particularly having regard to the fact that in such an event, the losses sustained by the affected parties thereby may not be possible to be redeemed.”_
OP (CAT) Nos.72, 76 & 81/2020
-16-
We feel that the Tribunal could not have passed any blanket interim order as has been done now and that the Tribunal should not have interdicted the selection process. In our view, the Tribunal failed to notice that the conduct of the examination for Category-I was for a total of 144 vacancies (approximately) while the number of persons who had raised complaints against the conduct of examination was only 10 in number (applicants in both the original applications together). The Central Government Standing Counsel has placed before us a memo regarding the number of candidates who took part in the examination and those who qualified etc., we extract below the memo in its entirety.
1. No. of candidates attended – 446 2. No. of candidates qualified in Paper-I and Paper-II – 427 3. No. of not qualified candidates - 19 4. Status of petitioners in the examination:
|**O.A. No.**|**Hall**<br>**Permit**<br>**No.**|**Name**|**Division**|**Whether**<br>**qualified in**<br>**Paper-1**<br>**&**<br>**Paper-II**|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|956/2019|311620|Smt. Sharafunnisa P.C.|Kannur|YES|
||312008|Shri. Premadas A.K.|Ottapalam|YES|
||311608|Shri. Mohanan K.|Kannur|NO|
||310303|Shri. P.R. Anil Kumar|Tiruvalla|YES|
||312401|Shri. Prasanth P.P.|Vadakara|YES|
|762/2019|311216|Shri. S. Sreekanth|Kottayam|YES|
||311615|Shri. P.K. Haridas|Kannur|YES|
||312303|Shri. K.K. Radhakrishnan|Tirur|YES|
||310901|Shri. Abhilash K. Aravind|Ernakulam|YES|
||310928|Shri. V.G. Ratheesh|Ernakulam|YES|
OP (CAT) Nos.72, 76 & 81/2020
-17-
It is clear from the above that 9 out of the 10 applicants before the Tribunal had actually qualified in the examinations in respect of which they had raised complaints. The Tribunal also failed to appreciate the fact that the applicants before the Tribunal had approached it after taking part in the selection process. It is settled law that those taking part in a selection process cannot thereafter turn around and challenge the selection process. The Tribunal also failed to appreciate that irreparable injury would be caused to those who had come out successful from Category-I if the selection process was held up completely. The Tribunal could have protected the interests of the applicants in the original application through some other order other than an order staying the entire selection process. We seen no reason as to why the selection to 144 vacancies (approximately) should be held up on the plea raised by 10 amongst 446 who appeared in the examination that the examination should have been conducted in a different manner. Prima facie, we are of the opinion that it is for the Department to set the standards for conduct of examination and persons who are to compete for selection cannot say that the examination must be conducted in a particular manner and also insist that the standard for testing the eligibility should be on a different scale for different category of persons. This is clearly not the function of the Court or the Tribunal. There seems to be no illegality or violation of any statutory Rule in the Department having decided to have the same examination for both
OP (CAT) Nos.72, 76 & 81/2020
-18-
Category-I and Category-II.
9. We therefore set aside the interim orders dated 29-10-2019, 20-12-2019 and 7-2-2020 in O.A 762 of 2019 and orders dated 01-01-2020 and 07-02-2020 in OA 956 of 2019. The applicants before the Tribunal will be free to apply for any other interim relief which will sub-serve their interests, pending disposal of the original applications before the Tribunal. We are of the firm view that selection need not be held up, in the facts and circumstances of the case. These original petitions are therefore allowed. We also make it clear that any observations made in this judgment shall not be treated as an expression of our view on the merits of the main case before the Tribunal. Those observations are made only for the purpose of holding that the interim order impugned before us cannot be sustained. The Tribunal is free to decide the main original application on merits untrammelled by any observation made by us in this judgment.
**Sd/-**
**A.M.SHAFFIQUE**
**JUDGE**
**Sd/GOPINATH P. JUDGE**
**AMG**
OP (CAT) Nos.72, 76 & 81/2020
-19-
## **APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 72/2020**
## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:**
**EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OA 180/01024/2016 WITH ANNEXURES**
- **EXHIBIT P1 (A11) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.RECTT/103/2019 DATED 05.08.2019**
- **EXHIBIT P1(A1) TRUE COPY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF POSTS (POSTAL ASSISTANT AND SORTING ASSISTANTS GROUP 'C' NON-GAZETTED RECRUITMENT RULES, 2015**
- **EXHIBIT P1(A2) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A-34012/01/2019-DE DATED 23.04.2019**
- **EXHIBIT P1(A3) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.RECTT/10-3/2018 DATED 14.01.2019**
- **EXHIBIT P1(A4) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.17-08/2018-SPB-I DATED 10.05.2019**
- **EXHIBIT P1(A5) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A-34012/05/20198 DE DATED 18.07.2019**
- **EXHIBIT P1 A6) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.34012/01/20198 DE DATED 31.05.2019**
- **EXHIBIT P1 (A7) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.17-08/2018SPB-I DATED 20.06.2019**
- **EXHIBIT P1(A8) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.RECTT/103/2019 DATED 24.06.2019**
- **EXHIBIT P1 (A9) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A-34012/01/20198 DE DATED 08.07.2019**
- **EXHIBIT P1 (A10) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.A34012/05/20198 DE DATED 30.07.2019**
- **EXHIBIT P1 (A12) TRUE COPY OF THE QUESTION PAPER OF PAPER -II FOR THE EXAMINATION CONDUCTED ON 15.09.2019**
- **EXHIBIT P1 (A13) TRUE COPY OF THE OMR SHEET FOR THE EXAM CONDUCTED ON 15.09.2019**
- **EXHIBIT P1 (A14) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19.09.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE NATIONAL UNION OF POSTAL EMPLOYEES POSTAMEN AND MTS GROUP 'C'**
|OP (CAT) Nos.72, 76 & 81/2020<br>-20-|OP (CAT) Nos.72, 76 & 81/2020<br>-20-|
|---|---|
|**EXHIBIT P1 (A15)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO. RECTT/10-**|
||**6/2019 DATED 05.08.2019**|
|**EXHIBIT P2**|**TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED**|
||**01.01.2010 IN OA 956/2019**|
|**EXHIBIT P3**|**TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN MA 102/2020**|
|**EXHIBIT P4**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED**|
||**07.02.2020 IN MA 102/2020(71-199)**|
|**EXHIBIT P4 (R1)**|**TRUE COPY OF RECRUITMENT RULES OF FOR POSTAL**|
||**ASSISTANTS/SORTING ASSISTANTS, 2015**|
|**EXHIBIT P4 (R2)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL DIRECTORATE LETTER**|
||**NO.A 34012-2015/2019 DE DATED 30.07.2019**|
|**EXHIBIT P4(R3)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED VIDE NO**|
||**RECTT/10-3/2019 DATED 05.08.2019**|
|**EXHIBIT P4 (R4)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED VIDE**|
||**NO.RECTT/10-6/2019 DATED 05.08.2019**|
|**EXHIBIT P4 (R5)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 31.05.2019 OF**|
||**CPMG, KERALA CIRCLE**|
|**EXHIBIT P4(R6)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10.01.2020 OF**|
||**MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS**|
|**EXHIBIT P4(R7)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24.01.2020**|
|**EXHIBIT P4 (R8)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22.01.2020**|
|**EXHIBIT P4 (R9)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29.01.2020**|
|**EXHIBIT P5**|**TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED**|
||**07.02.2020**|
|**EXHIBIT P6**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT TO THE**|
||**ORIGINAL APPLICATION 956/2019 (202-234)**|
|**EXHIBIT P6 (R1)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED SYLLABUS**|
||**COMMUNICATED TO AL DIVISIONS IN THE VIDE**|
||**CIRCLE OFFICE LETTER NO RECTT/12-1/RLGS/2018**|
||**DATED 31.05.2019**|
|**EXHIBIT P6 (R2)**|**SPECIMEN COPY OF ANSWER BOOKLET USED FOR**|
||**PAPER-II IN THE EXAMINATION HELD ON**|
||**15.09.2019**|
|**EXHIBIT P6 (R3)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF POSTS LETTER**|
||**NO.A-34012/05/2019-DE (VOL I) DATED**|
||**10.01.2020**|
OP (CAT) Nos.72, 76 & 81/2020 -21-
**EXHIBIT P6 (R4) TRUE COPY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF POSTS LETTER NO.A-34012/05/2019-DE (VOL I) DATED 16.01.2020 EXHIBIT P6 (R5) TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 07.02.2020 IN OA 956/2019**
OP (CAT) Nos.72, 76 & 81/2020
-22-
## **APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 76/2020**
## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:**
- **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF OA NO.762/2019 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5 BEFORE THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.**
- **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 29.10.2019 IN OA NO.180/00762/2019 OF THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.**
**EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE IMPLEADING APPLICATION IN MA 180/01119/2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.**
- **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE IMPLEADING APPLICATION IN MA NO.180/01122/2019 FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.**
- **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE IMPLEADING APPLICATION IN MA NO.180/01219/2019 FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.**
- **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE IMPLEADING APPLICATION IN MA NO.180/01260/2019 FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.**
- **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE MA NO.180/001220/2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.**
- **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE MA.NO.180/01261/2019 FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.**
- **EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE MA.NO.180/01225/2019 FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.**
- **EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 20.12.2019 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH REJECTING THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS FILED FOR MODIFICATION OF INTERIM ORDER DATED 29.10.2019.**
**EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF MA NO.180/00108/2020 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT 1 TO 3 BEFORE THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.**
OP (CAT) Nos.72, 76 & 81/2020 -23-
**EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7.2.2020 IN MA NO.108/2020 OF THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH. EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED 19.02.2020 IN OA NO.180/00762/2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.**
OP (CAT) Nos.72, 76 & 81/2020
-24-
## **APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 81/2020**
## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:**
**EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7/2/2020 IN M.A.NO.108/2020 OF THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.**
**EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 29/10/2019 IN O.A.NO.180/00762/2019 OF THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.**
- **EXHIBIT P2(A) TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 20/12/2019 IN M.A.NO.190/01220/2019 & M.A.NO.180/1261/2019 OF THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.**
- **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF M.A.NO.180/00108/2020 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 BEFORE THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.**
- **EXHIBIT P3(MA1) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATE 29/10/2019 OF THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL.**
- **EXHIBIT P3(MA2) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20/12/2019 OF THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL.**
- **EXHIBIT P3(MA3) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.RECTT/10-3/2019 DATED 28/1/2020 OF THE ASST. DIRECTOR (ESTT & RECTT) OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.**
- **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF O.A.NO.762/2019 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5 BEFORE THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.**
- **EXHIBIT P4 O.A.(A1) TRUE COPY OF THE RECRUITMENT RULES OF 2015 FOR PROMOTION AS PA/SA PUBLISHED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.**
- **EXHIBIT P4 O.A.(A2) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A-34012/01/2019DE DATED 23/4/2019, OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.**
- **EXHIBIT P4 O.A.(A3) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.RECTT./10-3/2019 DATED 5/8/2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.**
- **EXHIBIT P4 O.A.(A4) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.17-08/2018-SPE-I DATED 10/5/2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.**
OP (CAT) Nos.72, 76 & 81/2020
-25-
**EXHIBIT P4 O.A.(A5) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.RECTT./10-6/2019 DATED 5/8/2019 ISSUED BY THE AD (MAILS) OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.**
**EXHIBIT P4 O.A.(A6) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.34012/01/2019-DE DATED 8/7/2019 ISSUED FOR THE 1ST RESPONDENT.**
|**EXHIBIT P4 O.A.(A6)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.34012/01/2019-DE**<br>**DATED 8/7/2019 ISSUED FOR THE 1ST**<br>**RESPONDENT.**|
|---|---|
|**EXHIBIT P4 O.A.(A7)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.34012/05/2019-DE**|
||**DATED 30/7/2019 ISSUED FOR THE 1ST**|
||**RESPONDENT.**|
|**EXHIBIT P4 O.A.(A8)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.RECTT/10-3/2018**|
||**DATED 14/1/2019 ISSUED BY THE AD (MAILS) OF**|
||**THE 2ND RESPONDENT.**|
|**EXHIBIT P4 O.A.(A9)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER F.NO.A-**|
||**34012/05/2019-DE(VOL-I) DATED 26/9/2019**|
||**ISSUED OR THE 1ST RESPONDENT.**|
|**EXHIBIT P4 O.A.(A10) **|**TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED**|
||**16/10/2019 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST**|
||**RESPONDENT.**|
|**EXHIBIT P5**|**TRUE COPY OF THE IMPLEADING APPLICATION IN**|
||**M.A.NO.180/01119/2019 FILED BY THE**|
||**PETITIONERS BEFORE THE HON'BLE CENTRAL**|
||**ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.**|
|**EXHIBIT P6**|**TRUE COPY OF THE IMPLEADING APPLICATION IN**|
||**M.A.NO.180/01122/2019 FILED BEFORE THE**|
||**HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,**|
||**ERNAKULAM BENCH.**|
|**EXHIBIT P7**|**TRUE COPY OF THE IMPLEADING APPLICATION IN**|
||**M.A.NO.180/01219/2019 FILED BEFORE THE**|
||**HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,**|
||**ERNAKULAM BENCH.**|
|**EXHIBIT P8**|**TRUE COPY OF THE IMPLEADING APPLICATION IN**|
||**M.A.NO.180/01260/2019 FILED BEFORE THE**|
||**HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,**|
||**ERNAKULAM BENCH.**|
|**EXHIBIT P9**|**TRUE COPY OF THE M.A.NO.180/01220/2019 FILED**|
||**SOME OF THE BEFORE THE HON'BLE CENTRAL**|
||**ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.**|
|**EXHIBIT P10**|**TRUE COPY OF THE M.A.NO.180/01261/2019 FILED**|
||**BEFORE THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE**|
||**TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.**|
OP (CAT) Nos.72, 76 & 81/2020 -26-
**EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE M.A.NO.180/01225/2019 FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH. EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED 19/2/2020 IN O.A.NO.180/00762/2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND OTHER CO-RESPONDENTS IN THE OA BEFORE THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.**
**EXHIBIT P12 (R3(1)) TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION NO.A - 34012/01/2019-DE DATED 23/4/2019 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY O COMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENT OF POSTS. EXHIBIT P12 (R3(2)) TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION NO.A34012/01/2019-DE DATED 31/5/2019 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENT OF POSTS. EXHIBIT P12 (R3(3)) TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION NO.17-08/2018SPE-1 DATED 10/3/2019 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENT OF POSTS (RELEVANT PORTION). EXHIBIT P12 (R3(4)) TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION NO.RECTT/106/2015-16 DATED 6/6/2019 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CPMG. EXHIBIT P12 (R3(5)) TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION NO.F.NO.A34012/02/2019-DE DATED 19/7/2019 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENT OF POSTS.**
- **EXHIBIT P12 (R3(6)) TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION NO.RECTT/10-6/2019 DATED 5/8/2019 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CPMG.**
- **EXHIBIT P12 (R3(7)) TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION NO.RECTT/10-3/2019 DATED 24/6/2019 ISSUED BY THE OFFICER OF THE CPMG (RELEVANT PORTION).**
**EXHIBIT P12 (R3(8)) TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION NO.RECTT/10-3/2019 DATED 5/8/2019 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CPMG. EXHIBIT P12(R3(9)) TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION VIDE NO.A34012/05/2019-DE DATED 30/7/2019 ISSUED BY THE POSTAL DIRECTORATE AT NEW DELHI.**
OP (CAT) Nos.72, 76 & 81/2020
-27-
**EXHIBIT P12 (R3(10)) TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION NO.F.NO.A34012/05/2019-DE(VO.I) DATED 10/1/2020 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENT OF POSTS. EXHIBIT P12(R3(11)) TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION VIDE NO.RECTT/103/2019 DATED 28/1/2020 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CPMG.**