Union of India and Others v. Priya Ramesh and Rooben

**==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:27253` ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ``` PRESENT ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL ``` ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR ``` ``` FRIDAY, THE 28[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1947 ``` **==> picture [164 x 13] intentionally omitted <==** ``` AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.10.2023 IN OA NO.180/588/2021 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH ``` ## `PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS IN OA:` ``` 1UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY DAK BHAVAN, SANSAD MARG NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001 2THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL KERALA OFFICE OF THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL P.M.G JUNCTION, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695033 3THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICE IDUKKI DIVISION, THODUPUZHA, PIN - 865584 BY ADV S.KRISHNA ``` ## `RESPONDENTS/APPLICANT IN OA:` ``` 1PRIYA RAMESH, AGED 33 YEARS, W/O RAMESH KUMAR K MOOVELIPARAMBIL GLENMARY P O, PEERMADE, NOW WORKING AS BRANCH POST MASTER BRANCH POST OFFICE, KALTHOTTI, AYYAPPANKOVIL, IDUKKI, PIN - 685531 2ROOBEN, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O KJANAYYA KARUPPAN COLONY, SOORYANELLI P O CHINNAKKANAL, IDUKKI, NOW WORKING AS ASSISTANT BRANCH POST MASTER BRANCH POST OFFICE, CHINNAKKANA, PIN - 685618 ``` ``` THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` OP(CAT) No.206/2024 2 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [101 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----**<br> 2025:KER:27253<br>**----- End of picture text -----**<br> ## **JUDGMENT** ## **K. V. JAYAKUMAR, J** This OP(CAT) is preferred by the Union of India and its officers challenging the order dated 16.10.2023 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, whereby the Central Administrative Tribunal has allowed the claim of the applicants. 2. Succinctly, the facts in brief are as follows: The applicants are engaged as Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Deliverer (GDS MD) to various places in Kerala under the postal department. The Chief Post Master General issued notification dated 04.10.2021 inviting applications for Limited Departmental Competent Examination (LDCE) to the post of Postman and Mail Guard. 3. As per the said notification, the eligibility criteria under clause 3(ii)(a) and (c) were 10[th] standard pass from a recognized Board and that the candidate should have studied local language (Malayalam) atleast upto 10[th] standard. 4. The applicants responded to the notification. Their applications were not entertained on the ground that, each of the applicants has not studied Malayalam atleast upto 10[th] standard. The 3 ``` 2025:KER:27253 ``` OP(CAT) No.206/2024 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** validity of clause 3(ii)(c) of notification dated 04.10.2021 and clause (ii) of column 7 of schedule of the Recruitment Rules 2018 to the extent of providing that the candidate should have studied local language atleast upto 10[th] standard was challenged on the ground of violation of Article 14, 15, 16 and 29(1) of the Constitution of India and ultra vires to the provisions of the Constitution and was hence illegal. 5. The Central Administrative Tribunal, after considering the rival contentions of the applicants and the Union of India allowed the claim in the following manner: “32. Having considered the entire facts in the above perspective it is only to be held that the OAs are liable to be allowed holding that the impugned clauses are arbitrary, unconstitutional and cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 33. In the result all the OAs stands allowed as follows: i) Clause 7(ii) in the Recruitment Rule No. GSR 899(E) dated 20th September, 2018 to the extent of prescribing that " **The candidate should have studied local language at least up to 10th standard”** stands quashed. ii) Clause No. 3(ii)(c) in the notification No. B2/2-4/2019, dated 26.8.2019 for recruitment to the post of Postman and Mail Guard from eligible MTS and GDS for the vacancy for the year 2018 to the extent of prescribing that " **The candidate should have studied local language (Malayalam) at least up to 10th standard”** stands quashed. OP(CAT) No.206/2024 4 ``` 2025:KER:27253 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ⅲ) In the light of the above, the results of the candidates including that of the applicants who have been successful in the qualifying examination shall be considered in accordance with law and the results shall be finalized and declared by the Department as expeditiously as possible at any rate within 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order as if the above offending clauses are not in existence. 34. OAs are allowed to the above extent. No costs.” 6. The sole question involved in this OP(CAT) is whether clause 3(ii)(a) and (c) of the notification dated 04.10.2021 fixing the eligibility criteria that candidates should have studied local language (Malayalam) atleast upto 10[th] standard is violative of Article 14, 15, 16 and 29(1) of the Constitution. 7. The aforesaid issue was considered by a Division Bench of this Court [in which one of us is a member, Justice Amit Rawal] in OP(CAT) No.62/2024. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are extracted hereunder: 9. A perusal of the order impugned reveals that the Tribunal had considered the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in **V.N.Sunanda Reddy & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. [AIR 1995 SC 914]** . We are afraid that the reliance placed by the Tribunal on the aforesaid judgment was completely misplaced. The Tribunal misdirected itself to the entire issue at large. The facts of the case in **V.N.Sunanda Reddy** (supra) was entirely different and had no OP(CAT) No.206/2024 5 ``` 2025:KER:27253 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** relevance to the facts in the present case. In **V.N.Sunanda Reddy** (supra), the Supreme Court was considering a case where weightage was given in a selection to a post to those persons who had studied in Telugu Medium school. On an analysis of the various provisions of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the said weightage of giving additional marks to persons who had passed in Telugu Medium does not stand the test of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and accordingly, had declared the said weightage as invalid. 10. On an analysis of the law laid by the Supreme Court, we fail to see as to how the Central Administrative Tribunal could have applied the principles laid down in the above judgment to the case on hand. A close reading of the order impugned would show that the Tribunal held in the absence of any satisfactory material to satisfy that there were valid reasons for introducing such clause in the present Rules and the fact that the anterior and posterior Recruitment Rules did not contain such Rules clearly shows that the provisions were arbitrarily introduced and not supported by any justifiable reasons. We do not subscribe to the said finding, especially in view of the fact that the restriction which is stated to have been caused as per Annexure-A1 notification and Annexure-A5 Rules, does stand the test of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the discrimination based on the language cannot be a ground to test the validity of a Recruitment Rules. 11. Still further, it is pertinent to note that Annexure-A5 Recruitment Rules though challenged was not interfered with. What was interfered with was the posterior rules, namely Recruitment Rules of 2018 and the notification issued on this behalf. The notification which was interfered by the Tribunal was not applicable to the case of the applicant, since she admittedly did not apply pursuant to such notification. OP(CAT) No.206/2024 6 ``` 2025:KER:27253 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** 12. Even assuming for a moment that the reasoning adopted by the Tribunal was a plausible one, even then, we are not persuaded to hold that merely because such restriction was not contained in the anterior and posterior Rules, the Recruitment Rules could be challenged on the ground of inequality under Article 16 of the Constitution of India. 13. It is advantageous to point out that in the revised Recruitment Rules, which was issued on 30.8.2023, there is a separate prescription by which the person who does not posses the knowledge of a local language had applied for appointment, would be required to pass a test in the local language to be conducted in the manner as decided by the Postal circle concerned and passing of such local language test shall be a precondition for completion of probation. We have referred to the aforesaid Rules only to drive home the point that the requirement of knowledge of local language was always in the mind of the petitioners, either expressly under the Recruitment Rules, which would disable the candidate from applying or though not expressly provided under the Recruitment Rules, which would enable such candidate to apply, such candidates are required to pass test in the local language as a precondition for passing their probation. Therefore, the requirement of having a knowledge in the local language was always in minds of the petitioners/respondents, insofar as selection to the post of GDS-MD was concerned. 14. Having analysed the legal position as above, we would now come to the specific qualification of the applicant as could be seen from a reading of the impugned order. It is pertinent to note that the Tribunal had not called for the application and also the decision which made the minds of the authorities from rejecting the application of the applicant. Be that as it may, from the indisputed facts as could be seen from the order impugned, it is clear that the applicant had studied OP(CAT) No.206/2024 7 ``` 2025:KER:27253 ``` **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** Malayalam only up to 9th standard and whereas she had opted for Sanskrit for the 10th Standard thereby making her ineligible for applying to the post pursuant to Annexure-A1 notification. Therefore, we are clear in mind that the applicant was not eligible for applying to the post and accordingly, the Tribunal ought not to have granted the interim order allowing the candidate to appear provisionally for the examination. The result of the above discussion leads to a conclusion that the petitioners are entitled to succeed. Accordingly, the Original Petition is allowed. Ext.P3 order dated 16.10.2023 in O.A.No.590/2021 of the Central Administrative Tribunal is set aside. The restriction placed by this Court in its interim order dated 5.4.2024 is lifted. The Original Application would stand accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.” 8. The issue involved in this matter is no longer _res integra._ In view of the above judgment, this OP(CAT) is allowed setting aside the impugned order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. Sd/- **AMIT RAWAL JUDGE** Sd/- **K. V. JAYAKUMAR JUDGE** Sbna/ 8 ``` 2025:KER:27253 ``` OP(CAT) No.206/2024 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 206/2024` ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES ``` |`Annexure A5`|`TRUE COPY OF THE CLAUSE A1C) OF THE`| |---|---| ||`NOTIFICATION NO. RECTT/12-2/2021 DATED`| ||`04.10.2021.`| |`Annexure A1`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE`| ||`POSTMAN RECRUITMENT RULES, 2017.`| |`Annexure A2`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA OFFICIAL LANGUAGE`| ||`LEGISLATION ACT, 1969.`| |`Annexure A3`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER NO. ,GO(MS)`| ||`NO. 697 DATED 1.9.1965`| |`Annexure A4`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER NO. 17-`| ||`08/2018/SPB-1 DATED 16.5.2019.`| |`Annexure A6`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN`| ||`M.A.NO.180/00652/2021`<br>`IN`| ||`OA.NO.180/00708/2019`<br>`DATED`<br>`25.10.2021`| ||`PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL`| |`Annexure R1`|`TRUE COPY OF THE POSTMAN AND MAIL GUARD`| ||`RECRUITMENT RULES -2O18`| |`Annexure R2`|`TRUE COPY OF POSTMAN AND MAIL GUARD (GROUP`| ||`C' POST) RECRUITMENT (AMENDMENT) RULES,`| ||`2020`| |`Annexure R3`|`A TRUE COPY OF KERALA OFFICIAL LANGUAGE`| ||`(LEGISLATION) AMENDMENT 1973 (ACT 15 OF`| ||`1973].`| |`Annexure R4`|`A TRUE COPY OF ANNEXURE E OF POSTAL`| ||`DIRECTORATE LETTER NO. 17-O8/20L8-SPB-I`| ||`DATED 10.05.2019`| |`Annexure R5`|`A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 27.10.2016 IN OA`| ||`NO. 191/2O15`| |`Annexure R6`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONLCLE`| 9 ``` 2025:KER:27253 ``` OP(CAT) No.206/2024 **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` SUPREME COURT IN UNIONOF INDIA VS. PUSHPARAAI & OTHERS ``` ``` Annexure A7 ``` ``` Exhibit P1 ``` - `Exhibit P2` - `Exhibit P3` - `Exhibit P4` ``` TRUE COPY OF THE RESULTS PUBLISHED UNDER LETTER NO.RECTT/12-2/2021(CON) DATED 26-05- 2022 ``` - `A TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION DATED 01.11.2021 IN O.A. NO. 180/00588/2021 FILED BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, EMAKULAM BENCH BY THE RESPONDENTS` - `A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED 22.02.2022 IN O.A. NO.180/00588/2021, FILED BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH BY THE PETITIONERS` - `A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.10.2023 IN O.A. NO. 180/00588/2021, ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, EMAKULAM BENCH` ``` TRUE COPY OF THE MA.NO.392/2022 IN OA.NO. 588/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL ```