CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00483/2021 DATED THIS THE 20^th FEBRUARY, 2026 CORAM:

HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)

HON’BLE DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)

Sri. Manjunatha Hubballi, S/o Gadigeppa, Aged about 45 years, Working as Postal Stores, Depot (Adhoc), Hubballi-580029, Residing at, C/o Parashuram Utawali, Hosur IInd Cross, Hubballi-580029. …Applicant (By Advocate, Shri P. Kamalesan)

Vs.

1. Union of India, Represented by Secretary, Department of Post, Dak Bhavan, New Delhi-110001.

2. The Director General, Department of Posts, Dak Bhavan, New Delhi-110001 …Respondents (By Advocate, Shri S. Prakash Shetty)

O R D E R (ORAL)

PER: MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)

This Original Application is filed by the applicant under Section

19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, seeking the following reliefs:

“a. Call for the complete relevant records from respondents pertaining to the present case;

b. Quash the para No.7 regarding the vacancies notified for LDCE under 25% quota, vide Ministry of Communications, Department of Posts, New Delhi, Notification No.F No.A-34012/10/2019 DE dated: 20-10-2020 vide Annexure-

A10.

c. Direct the respondents to reassess the vacancies of both 75% seniority (DPC) quota and 25% Limited Departmental competitive Examination(LDCE) quota separately year-wise from the year 2017 onwards and fill them as per post roaster in consonance with the Department of Posts, Postal Service Group B Recruitment (Amendment)

Rules, 1993; Annexure A3.

d. Direct the respondents to strictly follow the 75% seniority quota and 25% Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) quota as provided for in the Department of Posts, Postal Service Group B Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 1993 in respect of future selection/recruitment/promotion to Postal Service Group B cadres.

e. Grant any other relief as deemed fit into the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.”

2. Briefly stated the facts as narrated by the applicant are that the applicant who was promoted as an Inspector of posts (IP) from 13.09.2004 after completing 8 years of service as on 13.09.2012 became eligible for promotion to the post of PS Group ‘B’ cadre under 75 % seniority quota.

3. The Respondent No. 1 on 28.09.2020, issued the notification for conducting the LDCE (19% for IP line and 6% for Clerical line) on 08.11.2020 for the vacancy of the years 2017-18 (no vacancy), 2018, 2019 and 2020 as per schedule specified therein, the said notification was cancelled in terms of the communication issued by the Respondent No.2 vide communication dated 13.10.2020.

Identical notification dated 20.10.2020 was again issued for conducting the LDCE on 29.11.2020, for promotion to the cadre of PS Group ‘B’ for the vacancies of the years 2017-18 (no vacancy), 2018, 2019 and 2020.

4. Being aggrieved by the said notification basically challenging the method of calculation of vacancies on vacancy base, the applicant has preferred this O.A.

5. Learned counsel Shri. P. Kamalesan representing the applicant submitted that the method of calculation of vacancies for conducting LDCE on 29.11.2020 is not in conformity with Recruitment Rules, 1993. The same is disproportionately increased. The number of LDCE quota calculated resulted in adversely worsening the chances of promotion of eligible candidates via seniority channel (DPC).

6. However, learned counsel appearing for both sides submit that the issue involved in this O.A is squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal – Ernakulam Bench in O.A No. 180/00194/2023 dated 28.11.2025 in the case of Shri Swaraj Nair vs. Union of India & Ors as such O.A deserves to be disposed of in terms of the said order.

7. The issue regarding the mode of calculation of vacancies has been extensively dealt by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Dr. R.N. Bhatnagar & Anr. (in CWP No. 5893/1997) dated 18.12.1998 followed by this Tribunal – Ern