The court upheld the Tribunal's discretion to create supernumerary posts for promotions based on earlier judgments, affirming no irregularities necessitate interference.

(Order of the Court was made by K.Kumaresh Babu J.)

The present writ petition has been filed to quash the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, in O.A.No.536 of 2020 dated

26.02.2024.

2. Heard Mr.M.Karthikeyan, learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners and Mr.R.Malaichamy, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the respondent was originally appointed as a Sorting Assistant in the year 2011 and is currently employed at the Computerised Registration Centre in Chennai. He had participated in the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) conducted for promotion to the Inspector of Posts cadre during the year 2019. The results were finally published on 24.06.2020, but its implementation was deferred in view of discrepancies in the answers, and the matter was referred to a Review Committee.

4. He would submit that none of the candidates who were successful in the said LDCE were permitted to take up positions in any of the Circles, including the Tamil Nadu Circle, with the exception of the Odisha Circle, where all were reverted to their original cadre and the selected candidates, based upon the revised results announced on 13.11.2020 pursuant to the Review Committee’s recommendations, assumed their new positions. He would submit that all the vacancies announced for the LDCE examination for the years 2016- 17 to 2018 have been filled up based on the revised results that were announced, and therefore it was not feasible to accommodate any other candidates without any notified vacancies, remaining vacant or against future vacancies, as it would undermine the legitimate rights of eligible candidates both from the department and open market in recruitments for the upcoming years. Overlooking the same, the Tribunal, following a decision of the Karnataka High Court, had allowed the Original Application. Hence, he would seek the indulgence of this Court.

5. Countering his arguments, Mr. R.Malaichamy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondent, would submit that the High Court of Karnataka, while considering a similar issue, had upheld the orders of the Tribunal, holding that it was impermissible to review the results once published, and had also upheld the directions issued by the Tribunal for creation of supernumerary posts. He would further submit that the aforesaid judgment was taken on appeal before the Hon’ble Apex Court, and the Special Leave Petition came to be dismissed, which was followed up by a Review by the Government and the same also came to be dismissed. He has produced the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the S.L.P and the Review Petition passed in this case. Hence, he pleads this Court to dismiss the writ petition. 6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record.

7. The Tribunal had relied upon the judgment of the Karnataka High Court made in the case of Union of India and Ors., Vs. Vijayakumar S.Emmegol made in W.P.No.106050 of 2023 dated 12.10.2023 and also the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Union of India & anr., Vs. Sh.Manish Kundnani & Ors., made in W.P.(C) No.1565/2023 dated 05.12.2023, and had granted the relief. The Tribunal, by applying the said judgments and held that the same are applicable to the facts of the case, had allowed the Original Application on the said principles and directed consideration of the respondent for selection in the year 2018 for the post of Inspector, if he was otherwise eligible.

8. The issue involved in this wr