The court established that an appointment through competitive examination is considered direct recruitment, not promotion, thus entitling the applicant to financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme after 30 years of service.

JUDGMENT :

K. V. JAYAKUMAR, J

Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.1114/2017 dated 28.11.2019, Union of India and its officers preferred this OP(CAT). As per the impugned order, the Central Administrative Tribunal allowed the following claims of the respondent/applicant.

(i) Call for the records leading to the issue of Annexure A10 and set aside Annexure A10 to the extent it refuses 3rd financial upgradation under MACP Scheme.

(ii) Declare that the applicant is entitled and eligible to be granted 3rd MACP financial upgradation benefits reckoning his service from the date on which he is appointed as Postal Assistant.

(iii) Direct the respondents to grant financial upgradation to the applicant on completion of 30 years from the date he has been appointed as Postal Assistant and to revise the pay and draw arrears with 12% interest.

(iv) Any other further relief or order as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper to meet the ends of justice.

(v) Award the cost of these proceedings.

2. Succinctly, the facts in brief are as follows:

The respondent/applicant, C. Vasudevan, joined the service of the respondents/petitioners as Postman with effect from 22.04.1978. In the year 1981, the respondent attended a competitive examination conducted for the appointment as Postal Assistant and was appointed with effect from 05.05.1982. On completion of 16 years, the applicant was granted financial upgradation under Time Bound One Promotion (TBOP) with effect from 10.05.1988 and Biennial Cadre Review (BCR) on completion of 26 years in the cadre of Postal Assistant with effect from 01.07.2008.

3. On the basis of the recommendations of 6^th CPC, the claim of the respondent/applicant is that he is entitled to 3^rd Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) as he had completed more than 30 years in the service of Postal Assistant cadre itself with effect from 05.05.2012 and submitted a representation to that effect, which was rejected vide Annexure-A10 order.

4. The stand of the petitioners/Union of India before the Tribunal and before us is that, since the applicant was granted two financial upgradations and one promotion, he is not entitled to get 3^rd MACP.

5. The Tribunal, noticing the rival contentions of the counsel for the parties, expressed the view that the respondent/applicant is entitled to get financial upgradation as per the MACP Scheme on completion of 30 years of service. The relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:

“7. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 5.8.2014 in Union of India v. Shakeel Ahmad Burney held as under:

"8. There is no magic in the use of the expression "Promotion" or "Direct Recruitment"; whether, in fact, the mode of entry to the service is through direct recruitment or promotion would certainly be dependent on facts of each case and the structure of the Rules. If one analyzes Rule 3, it would be apparent that recruitment is through "a competitive examination which will be open to both departmental candidates and outside candidates. During the course of submissions, the Union of India has emphasized that syllabus for departmental candidates was prescribed in 1964; even this fact nowhere indicates that a differential treatment is accorded to direct recruits who are drawn from the open market. The absence of any clearly stipulated and defined feeder post for promotion by way of seniority, or any other known method like seniority-cum-merit, selection etc., the mode prescribed in Rule 3(a) (i.e., departmental candidates also having to qualify in the competitive examination, along with outsiders) in this Court's opinion clinches the matter. To that effect, the CAT's decision that the entry of departmental candidates to the cadre of Postal Assistant is by way of direct recruitment is unexceptionable. We consequently affirm the findings of the CAT in the impugned order."

8. On the contrary respondents counsel Shri N.Anilkumar submitted that the applicant's appointment to the post of Postal A