Important Point: We do not find any justification for imposing cost. Similarly, there is no valid reason for giving direction to the Department of Posts to review the recognition of the Union, in case the cost amount is not deposited. This is not a frivolous litigation. The first petitioner espoused the cause of its members by filing the original application. It is for the Tribunal to consider as to whether there is any merit in the case pleaded by the first petitioner. The Tribunal proceeded as if it was a frivolous litigation and imposed cost. We do not find any valid ground to sustain the order directing payment of cost.

K.K. Sasidharan, J.

1. The action taken by the Department of Posts, Ministry of Communications, for the conduct of limited departmental competitive examination for promotion to the post of P.S. Group “B” from the year 2012 onwards by clubbing the year wise vacancies to fill up 19% of the total posts by single examination without giving five physical chances to appear in five different years of examination, made the All India Association of Inspectors and Assistant Superintendent of Posts, Tamil Nadu Circle, and one of its members, to file original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), dismissed the original application taking into account the reply statement filed by the Department of Posts, indicating the rule position and the practical difficulties to conduct separate examinations, taking into account the limited number of vacancies relating to the earlier years and the delay involved in the selection process. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners are before this Court.

Summary of facts:-

2. The first petitioner is stated to be the All India Association of Inspectors and Assistant Superintendent Posts, Tamil Nadu Circle. The second petitioner is working as Assistant Superintendent of Posts, Chennai. He is seeking promotion to the post of P.S. Group “B”.

3. The promotion to the post of Postal Services Group “B” is governed by the Department of Posts, Postal Services Group “B” Recruitment (Amendment) Rules 1993. The rules provide that 75% of the total vacancies should be filled by seniority from among the eligible employees holding the post of Inspector of Posts, 19% of vacancies by Limited Departmental Competitive Examination for Inspector line officials and 6% by Limited Departmental Competitive Examination for General Line officials.

4. The Department of Posts promoted officials to fill up 19% quota by conducting separate examinations for the year 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012. Thereafter, examinations were not held, in spite of vacancies.

5. While so, the Department of Posts issued the impugned notification dated 7 October 2016, for filling up all the vacancies which have arisen for the period 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 by means of a single competitive examination to be held on 4 December 2016. The notification was challenged before the Tribunal by the petitioners primarily on the ground that it would deny them opportunity to appear for the separate examinations for the year 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17. In short, it was the contention of the petitioners that the second petitioner and other similarly situated employees were denied of an opportunity to appear in the separate examinations to be held year wise on account of the act of clubbing vacancies and the proposal to conduct a single examination for filling up the 19% quota for the five year period 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17.

6. Before the Central Administrative Tribunal, the respondents filed a reply statement and contended that it would not be possible to conduct separate examination. According to the respondents, the claim of the petitioners would be considered by fixing different cut off marks for different years, taking into account the year wise vacancy position. The respondents further contended that in view of the limited vacancies for the earlier years, it would neither be feasible nor practicable to conduct the examination year wise separately.

7. The Tribunal found considerable force in the case pleaded by the Department of Posts and consequently upheld the notification. The original application was dismissed with costs.

Submissions:-

8. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that it was the consistent practice of the Department of Posts to conduct competitive examination year wise. In fact, the Department earlier published a calendar indicating separate dates for examination year wise. However, examina