High Court of KeralaDivision BenchPetitions allowed; Tribunal order set aside; cl...
OP(CAT).233/18 & connected cases
Case / Petition Number:OP(CAT).233/2018 (with connected cases: OP(CAT).3/2019, OP(CAT).4/2019, OP(CAT).73/2019)
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- K. Vinod Chandran
- V. G. Arun
- Judgment Date
- 2019-11-27
- Court Decision / Holding
- Original petitions allowed; Tribunal order set aside; the claim of the applicants rejected; No order as to costs.
- Final Disposition
- Petitions allowed; Tribunal order set aside; claims rejected; No costs.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Union of India represented by Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Communications & IT, Department of Posts, New Delhi
- The Chief Post Master General, Department of Posts, Kerala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram
- The Assistant Director (RECTT.), Office of the Chief Post Master General, Department of Posts, Kerala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram
- The Superintendent of Post Offices, Calicut Division, Kozhikode
Respondents
- Haris P.P., Postman, Calicut Head Post Office
- Vincent S., Postman, Kerala Governors Post Office, Raj Bhavan, Thiruvananthapuram South Division
- Naseeb P.K., Postman, Calicut H.O.
- Javeed O.K., Postman, Calicut H.O.
- Sharath K., S/o Ramesh K., Postman, Palakkad H.O.
- Subin B., S/o Babu K., Postman, Vanchiyoor Post Office
- Joseph Varghese S/o Varghese Thomas, Postman, Thevara Post Office
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Sri. T.V. Vinu, CGC
Counsels for Respondents
- • SMT. Rekha Vasudevan
Case Synopsis & Summary
This judgment by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court deals with a 2012 notification that clubbed vacancies from 2004–2010 for recruitment of meritorious sports persons into Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant and Postman posts. The notification envisaged 32 Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant posts and 20 Postman posts, with qualification requirements of 10+2 with at least 60% for Postal Assistant/Sorting, while Postman required only matriculation. Candidates were selected under Annexure A4 (2014), and one candidate challenged the 60% criterion. The CAT initially held the 2002 Recruitment Rules (R.R., 2002) applicable to the 2004–2010 vacancies, and a Division Bench later upheld that the higher posts could be filled per those rules. The Union of India submitted that a declaratory law by a Division Bench should apply to all similarly situated persons, relying on Lalitha’s case, while other authorities were cited for merit and eligibility. The High Court ultimately rejected the applicants’ broad application of Lalitha’s declaration, noting that those who joined as Postmen did so after accepting the post and could not claim the higher post under the notification. It cited Dhananjay Malik and Bank of India v. Arya K. Babu to hold that lack of qualification or failure to challenge the notification precludes reallocation. The court set aside the CAT order, allowed the petitions in part, and rejected the applicants’ broader claim, with no costs awarded.
Provisions of Law Cited
Department of Posts (Postal Assistants and Sorting Assistants) Recruitment Rules, 2002Department of Posts (Postal Assistants and Sorting Assistants) (Group-C Non Gazetted Recruitment Rules 2011)Notification No. RECTT/31-4/2008 dated 10-09-2012
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- All persons similarly situated should be treated similarly.
- A candidate who participates in the selection process, without demur, cannot challenge the eligibility criteria later.
- If a person has no qualification as specified in the notification, there could be no appointment.
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The applicants contended that a Division Bench had laid down the law that the Recruitment Rules of 2002 applied to vacancies notified in 2004–2010, and that this declaration should apply to all similarly situated persons. They argued that interim CAT orders made selections subject to outcome and that Lalitha’s equal-treatment doctrine should ensure uniform treatment of similarly situated candidates. Relying on Bank of India, Kochi v. Arya K. Babu, they argued that if the notification prescribed 60% marks for the plus-two qualification, this criterion could not be circumvented. They asserted that those who participated in the selection and accepted appointments cannot be deprived of the benefit of the declaration; they sought relief translating the 2002 R.R. to protect such candidates.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents argued that those who joined as Postmen after applying to that post cannot be shifted to Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant due to the clubbed vacancies and the established category; they asserted that the notification and recruitment rules were strictly followed and that the decision to apply the 2002 R.R. could not be extended to candidates who did not challenge the initial notification; they relied on precedents such as Dhananjay Malik v. State of Uttaranchal and the Bank of India decision to argue that lack of qualification or absence of a challenge precludes the requested relief.
Cited Precedents (3)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| State of Karnataka and Others v. C. Lalitha | (2006) 2 SCC 747 | Mentioned Only | Cited for the principle that all similarly situated persons should be treated alike, but the court holds Lalitha does not apply to the facts of these cases. |
| Dhananjay Malik v. State of Uttaranchal | AIR 2008 SC 1913 | Positive | Used to justify that a person who participates in the selection cannot challenge the eligibility criteria after accepting an appointment. |
| Bank of India, Kochi v. Aarya K.Babu | (2019) 8 SCC 587 | Positive | Supreme Court held that if a person has no qualification as specified in the notification, there can be no appointment; cited to support denying relief to the petitioners. |
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).233/18 & connected cases and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.
_**OP(CAT).233/18 & connected cases**_
1
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN**
**&**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN**
**WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941**
**OP (CAT).No.233 OF 2018**
**AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA 515/2017 DATED 06-08-2018 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH**
## **PETITIONER/S:**
**1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND IT, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, NEW DELHI-110 001. 2 THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, KERALA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 03.. 3 THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR(RECTT)., OFFICE OF THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL,. DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, KERALA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033. 4 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, CALICUT DIVISION, KOZHIKODE-673 005. BY ADV. SRI.T.V.VINU, CGC RESPONDENT/S:**
**HARIS P.P., S/O.MUHAMMED.P.P., POSTMAN, CALICUT HEAD POST OFFICE, RESIDING AT KOLLARAKKAL MEETHAL, PARANNUR P.O., NARIKUNNI, KOZHIKODE-673 585.**
**R1 BY ADV. SMT.REKHA VASUDEVAN**
**THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.11.2019, ALONG WITH OP (CAT).3/2019, OP (CAT).4/2019, OP (CAT).73/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
_**OP(CAT).233/18 & connected cases**_
2
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN**
**&**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN**
**WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941**
**OP (CAT).No.3 OF 2019**
**AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA 361/2017 DATED 06-08-2018 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH**
## **PETITIONER/S:**
- **1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND IT,DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, NEW DELHI-110001**
- **2 THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, KERALA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033**
- **3 THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (RECTT.) OFFICE OF THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL,DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, KERALA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033**
- **4 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, ERNAKAULAM DIVISION, ERNAKULAM-682 020 BY ADV. SRI.T.V.VINU, CGC**
## **RESPONDENT/S:**
**JOSEPH VARGHESE S/O. VARGHESE THOMAS, POSTMAN, THEVARA POST OFFICE, ERNAKULAM DIVISION, RESIDING AT P AND T QUARTERS, BJ-7,THEVARA P.O., COCHIN-13**
## **R1 BY ADV. SMT.REKHA VASUDEVAN**
**THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.11.2019, ALONG WITH OP (CAT).233/2018, OP (CAT).4/2019, OP (CAT).73/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
_**OP(CAT).233/18 & connected cases**_
3
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN**
**&**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN**
**WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941**
**OP (CAT).No.4 OF 2019**
**AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA 524/2017 DATED 06-08-2018 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH**
## **PETITIONER/S:**
- **1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND IT, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, NEW DELHI-110 001.**
- **2 THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, KERALA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.**
- **3 THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (RECTT.) OFFICE OF THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, KERALA CIRCLE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.**
- **4 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES THIRUVANANTHAPURAM SOUTH DIVISION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 036.**
- **5 THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES KOZHIKODE DIVISION, KOZHIKODE-673 033.**
- **6 THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES PALAKKAD DIVISION, PALAKKAD-678 001.**
**BY ADV. SRI.T.V.VINU, CGC**
## **RESPONDENT/S:**
- **1 VINCENT.S. S/O SANJORIS, POSTMAN, KERALA GOVERNORS POST OFFICE, RAJ BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM SOUTH DIVISION, RESIDING AT MATHAS HOUSE, CHOWARA P.O.,**
_**OP(CAT).233/18 & connected cases**_
4
## **THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 501.**
- **2 NASEEB P.K. S/O. P.K.RAYIN, POSTMAN, CALICUT H.O., KOZHIKODE DIVISION, RESIDING AT PARUTHIKUNNAN HOUSE, EERANHIMANGAD P.O., NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM-679 329.**
- **3 JAVEED O.K. S/O HAMZA O.K., POSTMAN, CALICUT H.O., KOZHIKODE DIVISION, RESIDING AT ODAKKAL HOSUE, POOKKOTTUMPAADAM P.O., MALAPPURAM-679 332.**
- **4 SHARATH K**
**S/O RAMESH K., POSTMAN, PALAKKAD H.O., PALAKKAD DIVISION, RESIDING AT ANUPAMA HOUSE, NELLIKODE P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 016.**
**R1-4 BY ADV. SMT.REKHA VASUDEVAN**
**THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.11.2019, ALONG WITH OP (CAT).233/2018, OP (CAT).3/2019, OP (CAT).73/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
_**OP(CAT).233/18 & connected cases**_
5
# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
# **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN**
**&**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN**
**WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941**
**OP (CAT).No.73 OF 2019**
**AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA 392/2017 DATED 06-08-2018 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH**
## **PETITIONER/S:**
**1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND IT, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, NEW DELHI - 110 001. 2 THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, KERALA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033. 3 THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (RECTT.) OFFICE OF THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, KERALA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033. 4 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM NORTH DIVISION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033. BY ADV. SRI.T.V.VINU, CGC**
## **RESPONDENT/S:**
**SUBIN B., S/O.BABU K., POSTMAN, VANCHIYOOR POST OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM NORTH DIVISION, RESIDING AT PANAVILAVEEDU, KARIYAVATTOM, THUNDATHIL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 581.**
**R1 BY ADV. SMT.REKHA VASUDEVAN**
**THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.11.2019, ALONG WITH OP (CAT).233/2018, OP (CAT).3/2019, OP (CAT).4/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
_**OP(CAT).233/18 & connected cases**_
6
## **K.VINOD CHANDRAN & V.G.ARUN, JJ.**
## **----------------------------------------------O.P(CAT).No.233 of 2018 and O.P(CAT).Nos.3, 4 & 73 of 2019 ----------------------------------------------Dated this the 27[th] day of November, 2019**
## **JUDGMENT**
## _**Vinod Chandran, J.**_
Applicants before the Tribunal are the respondents. Parties and documents are referred to as in O.A.No.515 of 2017 and we specifically refer to O.P(CAT).No.233 of 2018. The Union of India is aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal which directed the applicants to be granted the post of Postal Assistant as against their appointment as Postman. The controversy arose with respect to a notification dated 10.9.2012 which clubbed together the vacancies of 2004 to 2010 for recruitment from meritorious sports persons.
2. The notification is available at Annexure A1. The notification called for applications for appointment to the post of Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant and Postman; 32 posts in the former and 20 in the latter. The qualification prescribed was 10+2 Standard or 12[th] class pass with at least 60% marks while for the post of Postman, the qualification required is only a pass in matriculation. The candidates applied under the notification and eventually were selected as is seen
_**OP(CAT).233/18 & connected cases**_
7
from Annexure A4 dated 21.8.2014. One of the persons was selected as Postman. Immediately after the issuance of the notification at Annexure A4, she approached the Tribunal challenging the qualification prescribed in the notification and asserting that in accordance with the Regulations of 2002, the qualification for a Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant was only a pass in 10+2 and not with 60% marks. The Tribunal by Annexure A5 made the selection subject to the outcome of the original applications. Eventually the Tribunal by Annexure A6 found that the Recruitment Rules applicable is that of Annexure A2 of 2002. An original petition (CAT) was filed in which a Division Bench of this Court by Annexure A7 also found that the vacancies being of the year 2004-2010, the Recruitment Rules applicable is Annexure A2 of the year 2002 and not that of 2011. The Division Bench hence rejected the contention of the Union of India that the applicant therein could not be posted as Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant.
3. On the basis of the aforesaid declaration of law, the applicants herein also who had 10+2 qualification but not with 60% in the Plustwo filed representations for adjustment of their appointments also and then approached the Tribunal claiming similar reliefs. The original applications filed by the applicants were allowed directing that the applicants are to be considered for the post of Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant based on the initial selection itself.
_**OP(CAT).233/18 & connected cases**_
8
4. The learned Central Government Counsel submits that the applicants were persons who had got appointments as Postmen and joined their posts without any demur. They also applied only for that post and their selection was from the candidates who applied for that post. The entire posts as notified as per Annexure A1 have been filled up and there could be no change of category granted to the applicants.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants however would submit that when there is a declaration of law by a Division Bench of this Court, that should apply to all persons similarly situated. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in _**State of Karnataka and Others v. C.Lalitha**_ [(2006)2 SCC 747]. It is also argued that Annexure A5 interim order issued by the Tribunal made the selection itself subject to the result of the original application and hence the applicants could claim the benefit of the judgment even when they had not approached the court earlier.
6. We are unable to accept the contention of the applicants for the simple reason that they were persons who applied under the notification, subjected themselves to selection for a particular post and accepted their appointments. They did not challenge the selection at all or raise their claim at the appropriate time. An alert candidate had approached the Tribunal, which upheld the claim as proper. Persons who applied and accepted their appointments without demur and
_**OP(CAT).233/18 & connected cases**_ 9
joined in the posts offered cannot take benefit of a judgment in a proceeding where another candidate had taken recourse to the legal remedy, against the notification itself. A candidate who participated in the selection process, without demur, cannot later challenge the eligibility criteria as contrary to Service Rules [ _**Dhananjay Malik v. State of Uttaranchal**_ (AIR 2008 SC 1913)].
7. We do not find any application of the judgment in **C.** _**Lalitha's case (supra)**_ to the facts of the above case. That was a case in which the petitioner sought a promotion on the basis of an earlier judgment of the Apex Court which eventually when it again reached the same Court; noticing that she had already been promoted directed a supernumerary post to be created for her initial appointment, if there was no vacancy available. The cited decision was in the second round of litigation wherein it was contented by the State that there were other persons who were more meritorious and senior to her. It was in this context that it was said so:
_**“29.** Service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all persons similarly situated should be treated similarly. Only because one person has approached the court that would not mean that persons similarly situated should be treated differently. It is furthermore well settled that the question of seniority should be governed by the rules. It may be true that this Court took notice of the subsequent events, namely, that in the meantime she had also been promoted as Assistant Commissioner which was a Category I post but the_
_**OP(CAT).233/18 & connected cases**_
10
_direction to create a supernumerary post to adjust her must be held to have been issued only with a view to accommodate her therein as otherwise she might have been reverted and not for the purpose of conferring a benefit to which she was not otherwise entitled to.”_
Merely on the ground that the petitioner had approached the Court, she cannot be placed above her accepted seniors was the finding. The declaration made therein cannot be divorced from the facts and here the benefit of a decision obtained by another is sought to be enjoyed without having challenged the notification or the initial appointment which those others accepted without demur.
8. We also notice that the interim order passed, at the time of admission of the O.A made the selection, subject to the final outcome of the original application. At the final outcome of the original application, no interference was caused to the selection as such and the applicant therein was alone directed to be considered to the post of Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant.
9. We do not think that in this case there could be a finding that the declaration of law made by the Division Bench, would apply to the applicants herein also. We refer to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in _**Bank of India, Kochi v. Aarya K.Babu**_ [(2019) 8 SCC 587] wherein the question of consideration of persons who did not have the qualification as prescribed in the notification, was elaborately looked at. The Honourable Supreme Court found that if a person had
_**OP(CAT).233/18 & connected cases**_
11
no qualification as specified in the notification, definitely there could be no appointment made of such persons. The said decision is reported in the year 2019 and we do not find ourselves compelled to follow the Division Bench judgment at Annexure A7; which held to the contrary. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court there would have been a lot more candidates who would have applied for that higher post if the notification did not specify 60% for the plus-two qualification. On all these grounds the original petitions would stand allowed, setting aside the order of the Tribunal. The claim of the applicants is liable to be rejected. No order as to costs.
## **K.VINOD CHANDRAN**
**JUDGE**
Sd/- **V.G.ARUN JUDGE**
_vgs_
_**OP(CAT).233/18 & connected cases**_
12
## **APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 233/2018**
## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:**
|**ANNEXURE A1**|**TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.RECTT/31-**|
|---|---|
||**4/2008 DATED 10.9.2012 ISSUED BY THE 3RD**|
||**RESPONDENT.**|
|**ANNEXURE A2**|**TRUE COY OF DEPARTMENT OF POSTS (POSTAL**|
||**ASSISTANTS AND SORTING ASSISTANTS)**|
||**RECRUITMENT RULES, 2002.**|
|**ANNEXURE A3**|**TRUE COPY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF POSTS**|
||**(POSTAL ASSISTANTS AND SORTING ASSISTANTS**|
||**(GROUP C NON-GAZETTED RECRUITMENT RULES**|
||**2011.**|
|**ANNEXURE A4**|**TRUE COPY OF THEMEMO NO.RECTT.31-4/2008**|
||**DATED 21.8.2014 ISSUED BY THE 3RD**|
||**RESPONDENT.**|
|**ANNEXURE A5**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.9.2014 IN**|
||**OA NO.180/00715/2014 OF THE CAT ERNAKULAM**|
||**BENCH.**|
|**ANNEXURE A6**|**TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER DATED**|
||**25.2.2016 IN OA NO.180/00715/2014 OF THE**|
||**CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH.**|
|**ANNEXURE A7**|**TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.5.2016**|
||**IN OP(CAT) NO.147 OF 2016(Z) OF THIS**|
||**HON'BLE COURT.**|
|**ANNEXURE A8**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED**|
||**20.3.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT TO THE**|
||**2ND RESPONDENT.**|
|**ANNEXURE R1**|**TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL DIRECTORATE**|
||**INSTRUCTIONS DATED 25.7.1990.**|
|**EXHIBIT P1**|**TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.NO.180/00515/2017**|
||**DATED 25.06.2017 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT.**|
|**EXHIBIT P2**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT IN**|
||**O.A.NO.180/00515/2017 DATED 21.09.2017**|
||**FILED BY THE PETITIONERS.**|
|**EXHIBIT P3**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN**|
||**O.A.NO.180/00515/2017 DATED 06.08.2018 OF**|
||**THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,**|
||**ERNAKULAM BENCH.**|
_**OP(CAT).233/18 & connected cases**_
13
## **APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 3/2019**
## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:**
**ANNEXURE A 10 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NO.RECTT/31-4/OA 167/2017 DATED 10.04.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT**
**ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.RECTT/314/2008 DATED 10.09.2012 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF POSTS (POSTAL ASSISTANTS AND SORTING ASSISTANTS)RECRUITMENT RULES,2002 ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF POSTS(POSTAL ASSISTANTS AND SORTING ASSISTANTS) (GROUP-C NON-GAZETTED) ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NO.B3/RECTT/-SPORTS QUOTA/2008 DATED 23.10.2014 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.09.2014 IN O.A.NO.180/00715/2014 OF THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL. ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER DATED 25.02.2016 IN O.A.NO.180/00715/2014 OF THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.05.2016 IN OP(CAT)NO.147 OF 2016(Z)OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE RPEPRESENTATION DATED OCTOBER 2016 SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT ANNEXURE A9 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER DATED 03.03.2017 IN O.A.NO.180/167/2017 OF THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL ANNEXURE R2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT IN O.A.NO.180/00361/2017,DATED 28.08.2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS. ANNEXURE R2 TRUE COPY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF POSTS(POSTAL ASSISTANT AND SORTING ASSISTANTS)(GROUP C NON GAZETTED)RECRUITMENT RULES 2011**
_**OP(CAT).233/18 & connected cases**_ 14
|**EXHIBIT P1**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION IN**|
|---|---|
||**O.A.NO.180/00361/2017, DATED 10/05/017,**|
||**FILED BY THE RESPONDENT.**|
|**EXHIBIT P2**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT IN**|
||**O.A.NO.180/00361/2017 DATED 28/08/2017**|
||**FILED BY THE PETITIONERS.**|
|**EXHIBIT P3**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN ORIGINAL**|
||**APPLICATION NO.180/00361/2017, DATED**|
||**06/08/2018, ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL**|
||**ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.**|
_**OP(CAT).233/18 & connected cases**_
15
## **APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 4/2019**
## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:**
**ANNEXURE A10 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NO. RECTT/314/OA166/2017 DATED 18-04-2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.**
|**ANNEXURE A10**|**TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NO. RECTT/31-**<br>**4/OA166/2017 DATED 18-04-2017 ISSUED BY THE**<br>**2ND RESPONDENT.**|
|---|---|
|**ANNEXURE A1**|**TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO. RECTT/31-**|
||**4/2008 DATED 10-09-2012 ISSUED BY THE 3RD**|
||**RESPONDENT**|
|**ANNEXURE A2**|**TRUE COPY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF POSTS**|
||**(POSTAL ASSISTANTS AND SORTING ASSISTANTS)**|
||**RECRUITMENT RULES, 2002.**|
|**ANNEXURE A3**|**TRUE COPY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF POSTS**|
||**(POSTAL ASSISTANTS AND SORTING ASSISTANTS)**|
||**GROUP-C NON GAZETTED RECRUITMENT RULES 2011**|
|**ANNEXURE A4**|**TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NO. RECTT/31-4/2008**|
||**DATED 21-08-2014 ISSUED BY THE 3RD**|
||**RESPONDENT.**|
|**ANNEXURE A5**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26-09-2014 IN**|
||**O.A NO. 180/00715/2014 OF THIS HON'BLE**|
||**TRIBUNAL.**|
|**ANNEXURE A6**|**TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER DATED 25-02-**|
||**2016 IN OA NO. 180/00715/2014 OF THIS**|
||**HON'BLE TRIBUNAL.**|
|**ANNEXURE A7**|**TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 31-05-2016**|
||**IN O.P (CAT) NO. 147 OF 2016(Z) OF THE**|
||**HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA**|
|**ANNEXURE A8**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15-**|
||**02-2017 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST APPLICANT TO**|
||**THE 2ND RESPONDENT.**|
|**ANNEXURE A9**|**TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER DATED 03-03-**|
||**2017 IN O.A NO. 180/166/2017 OF THIS**|
||**HON'BLE TRIBUNAL**|
|**EXHIBIT P1**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION**|
||**NO.180/00524/2017 DATED 25.6.2017 FILED BY**|
||**THE RESPONDENTS.**|
|**EXHIBIT P2**|**TRUE COPPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT IN**|
||**O.A.NO.180/00524/2017, DATED 10.10.2017,**|
||**FILED BY THE PETITIONERS.**|
_**OP(CAT).233/18**_
16
_**& connected cases**_
**EXHIBIT P3**
**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OA NO.180/00524/2017, DATED 6.8.2018 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.**
_**OP(CAT).233/18 & connected cases**_
17
## **APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 73/2019**
## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:**
|**ANNEXURE A1**|**TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO. RECTT/31-**|
|---|---|
||**4/2008 DATED 10.09.2012 ISSUED BY THE 3RD**|
||**RESPONDENT.**|
|**ANNEXURE A2**|**TRUE COPY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF POSTS**|
||**(POSTAL ASSISTANTS AND SORTING ASSISTANTS)**|
||**RECRUITMENT RULES 2002.**|
|**ANNEXURE A3**|**TRUE COPY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF POSTS**|
||**(POSTAL ASSISTANTS AND SORTING ASSISTANTS),**|
||**RECRUITMENT RULES 2011.**|
|**ANNEXURE A4**|**TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. B3/RECTT/SORTS**|
||**QUOTA/2008 DATED 23.10.2014 ISSUED BY THE**|
||**4TH RESPONDENT.**|
|**ANNEXURE A5**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2014 IN**|
||**O.A. NO. 180/00715/2014 OF THE HONBLE**|
||**TRIBUNAL.**|
|**ANNEXURE A6**|**TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER DATED**|
||**25.02.2016 IN O.A. NO. 180/00715/2014 OF**|
||**THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL.**|
|**ANNEXURE A7**|**TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.05.2016**|
||**IN OP(CAT) NO. 147 OF 2016(Z), OF THE**|
||**HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.**|
|**ANNEXURE A8**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED**|
||**26.07.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT TO**|
||**THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE**|
||**ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD.**|
|**ANNEXURE A9**|**TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER DATED**|
||**10.03.2017 IN O.A. NO. 180/187/2017 OF THE**|
||**HONBLE TRIBUNAL.**|
|**EXHIBIT P1**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION IN**|
||**O.A.NO.180/00392/2017, DATED 10/05/2017.**|
|**EXHIBIT P2**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT IN O.A.NO.**|
||**180/00392/2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS.**|
|**EXHIBIT P3**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN**|
||**O.A.NO.180/00392/2017, DATED 06/08/2018**|
||**ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE**|
||**TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.**|