The aggregate marks, rather than segment scores, determine eligibility for appointment under recruitment processes, emphasizing equitable treatment in public service.

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, call for records pertaining to the order dated 04.07.2023 in O.A.1771/2016 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench and quash the same. For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Janarthanam For Respondent(s): Mr. R. Malaichamy

ORDER

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

The present writ petition has been filed to quash the order dated

04.07.2023 in O.A.No.1771 of 2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent, who had been employed as a GDS, had participated in the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (hereinafter referred to as ‘LDCE’) and that he had scored 51 marks. He would submit that there were totally four vacancies, which had been particularly reserved as three for unreserved category and one for OBC. Out of the three vacancies reserved for the unreserved category, one had been earmarked for horizontal reservation for Ex-Servicemen.

3. He would submit that as there was no Ex-Serviceman, who had opted for the said examination, two vacancies in the unreserved category were filled up by taking the highest marks scored by two individuals under the unreserved category, and one vacancy under the OBC category was filled up by the highest ranked OBC candidate. Since the respondent was ranked second in the OBC category, he was not accommodated in the said recruitment process.

4. The same came to be challenged by the respondent before the Central Administrative Tribunal and under the impugned order, the Tribunal, holding that the rejection of the respondent was not valid, had directed appointment of the respondent as Postman with all consequential benefits on par with the other selected candidates. He would submit that, as per the Notification issued, the written examination would be conducted in four segments, namely, Part A – General Knowledge, Part B – Mathematics, Part C (i) – English, and Part C (ii) – Regional Language. A candidate has to secure a minimum of 10 marks for the Open Category and 9 marks for an OBC candidate in both Part A and Part B independently. As regards Part C, which consists of two segments, the minimum pass marks for the Open Category had been fixed as 10 marks and 9 marks for an OBC candidate in each of the segments.

5. He would further submit that the respondent herein had secured a total of 51 marks by securing more than the minimum marks that had been prescribed in each of the segments. The another OBC candidate, who had secured 55 marks, had secured only 9 marks in Part B. Therefore, he was not considered for the Open Category as the minimum pass mark for Part B is 10. Hence, he was accommodated in the OBC category, and the candidates who have secured the pass mark in all segments were selected under the unreserved category.

6. Therefore, he would submit that the respondent was not entitled to be appointed in the recruitment process for the year 2015–16. However, the Tribunal wrongly concluded that the horizontal reservation for Ex-Servicemen should have been adjusted horizontally and that, if there was no Ex-Serviceman, who are eligible to be appointed against the said vacancy, it had to be adjusted accordingly, and thereby directed appointment of the respondent. He would submit that such directions issued is wholly erroneous. That apart, he would s