Important points:
Lower level appointments, like Multi Tasking Staff (MTS), Postman, etc. where the irregularities in the selection process cannot in any manner be attributed to the applicant, then some level of considerations based on equity, justice and good conscience may be called for, which vestage of discretionary power is certainly vested with the Tribunal, being the court of first instance to exercise the plenary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of the provisions made by the Constitutional amendment by the engraftment of Article 323A of the Constitution of India and as explicitly incorporated in the legislative policy of the Parliament by the enactment of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1995.

JUDGMENT :

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

1. The prayer in the aforecaptioned Original Petition (CAT) filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is as follows:

“.......to set aside Exhibit P5 order in O.A. No. 180/01153/2014 dated 28.09.2018 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, in the interest of justice.”

2. Heard Sri. P. Vijayakumar, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for the petitioners in the OP/respondents in the OA before the Tribunal and Sri. S. Vishnu, learned Advocate appearing for the sole respondent in the OP/original applicant before the Tribunal. At the relevant time, the respondent herein (original applicant before the Tribunal) was then holding the post of Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Deliverer (GDSMD), (referred to hereinafter for convenience as GDS). He had applied for selection in the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) invited by the Postal Department concerned for selection and appointment to the post of Multi Tasking Staff (MTS) under the Aluva Division of the Postal Department, for the selection year 2013. The original applicant being an eligible candidate who participated in the said competitive examination for the selection year 2013 and had secured 80 marks out of 100 among the eligible candidates who had part taken in the examination in the Aluva Division, and, another candidate by name Nisha M.R. had also secured the equal marks, viz. 80 marks in the said examination. The applicant being senior to the latter and as the latter candidate was otherwise eligible for reservation turn set apart for other backward classes (OBC), the 1st petitioner herein, Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Aluva Division had then issued Annexure A1 proceedings dated 13.11.2013 ordering that the original applicant and the above said Nisha M.R. are declared to have been selected for appointment in the said Competitive Examination for promotion to the cadre of MTS held on 20.10.2013 for the vacancies of the selection year 2013. It is common case that thereafter both the original applicant and the above said Nisha M.R. had secured appointment orders to the post of MTS. Annexure A2 is the appointment order dated 21.11.2013 issued by the appointing authority in the case of the original applicant in respect of the post of MTS. It appears that the said Limited Departmental Competitive Examination conducted on 20.10.2013 was a common selection examination for GDS candidates for various divisions including Aluva Division. It appears that there is no complaint as regards the conduct of the examination or the marks awarded, as far as the selected candidates in Aluva Division is concerned to which the original applicant was selected and appointed. Later, it appears that one Smt. Sunitha K.A. who is a GDS in Alappuzha Division and who had taken part in the said Common Limited Departmental Competitive Examination conducted on 20.10.2013 had complained to the Postal authorities concerned that there was a fault in the answer key approved and published by the Postal Department for valuation of the answer scripts in the said examination. It appears that the Postal authorities had not taken any action on the said complaint of Smt. Sunitha K.A. Being aggrieved thereby, Smt. Sunitha K.A. who is a GDS of Alappuzha Division had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing original application as O.A. No. 174 of 2014 praying for directions by the Tribunal to the Postal authorities concerned to take action for examining the correctness or otherwise of the answer keys approved and published by the Department which was the basis for the valuation of the examination process. It appears that the Tribunal had admitted the said O.A. No. 174 of 2014 and no interim orders were passed thereon. Further, from the pleadings and materials on record it appears that presumably in view of the pendency of the said OA, the Postal authorities concerned had themselves taken action for examining the