Per: K. V. Eapen, Administrative Member

1. The applicants in the O.A are Postmen working in the Trivandrum North Division under the Kerala Postal Circle. They have filed this OA as they are aggrieved by what they term as inaction on part of the respondents in considering their representations for appointment to the post of Sorting Assistant (SA) in the Railway Mail Service (RMS) Trivandrum (TV) Division, despite there being sufficient vacancies, as well as no other qualified hands under the RMS TV Division.

2. It is submitted by the applicant that the post of Postal Assistant (PA) in the regular postal service and the post of Sorting Assistant (SA) in the Railway Mail Service (RMS) are identical. It is submitted that the selection to the said posts is being carried out by a common selection procedure. It is contended that the RMS TV is only another division of the Postal Department, under the 2nd respondent, the Chief Post Master General (CPMG), Kerala Circle. Accordingly, it is submitted that the incumbents in the regular posts are granted transfer and appointment to the posts in the RMS, and vice-versa. The vacancies in the post of Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant under the 50% quota had not been filled up since 2016 onwards. The 2nd respondent, CPMG Kerala had carried out a common selection procedure for the vacancies from 2016 to 2018 in a single go. A notification for the same was published on 30.10.2018 and is produced at Annexure A1. The four applicants in this O.A, who had satisfied the eligibility criteria had appeared for the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) for promotion to the said post of PA/SA from the level of Postman. The examination was conducted on 09.12.2018 and results were published as per notification dated 27.02.2019. It is submitted that the qualifying marks prescribed were 40% for OC/UR candidates and 33% for SC/ST candidates in each of the two papers. The third respondent who is the Assistant Director (Recruitment) in the Office of the CPMG Kerala had published the Select List for each Division. It is submitted that the applicants herein had secured marks above the passing marks. However, they could not secure a position in the Select List for the Trivandrum North Division as they did not come on merit within the first 15 ranks. The number of vacancies notified for Trivandrum Division was 15 only.

3. A copy of the notification dated 27.02.2019 along with the results of LDCE and the Select List has been produced at Annexure A2. The said notification dated 27.02.2019 reveals that the number of vacancies for Postal Assistants (P.As) in Trivandrum North Division for the year 2016- 17 were 4 with another 4 for 2017-18. For 2018 (April to December) the number of vacancies were 7, making a total of 15 posts of Postal Assistants for the period 2016-17 & 2018 December. The notification at Annexure A2 also would reveal that the number of RMS Trivandrum Division vacancies for Sorting Assistants was 2016-17 – 9, 2017-18 – 11 and 2018 (April to December) – 5, making a total of 25 Sorting Assistants in RMS Trivandrum Division for the same period. The applicants submit that even though they have not qualified within the first 15 ranks to be considered for the posts of Postal Assistants in Trivandrum North Division, they could have still been considered for the posts against the 25 RMS Trivandrum Division vacancies, which was also part of the same selection procedure. They point out that, as against 25 RMS Trivandrum Division vacancies for SA, only 3 officials had been appointed. Hence, as many as 22 vacancies are remaining unfilled in the category of Sorting Assistants in RMS TV Division. All the applicants had secured the requisite cut-off marks and as such, it is submitted that they are eligible to be considered against these vacancies in RMS-TV Division.

4. It is submitted that the applicants had individually submitted representations to the 2nd respondent CPMG, Kerala Circle seeking appointment to these RMS-TV vacancies. However, no reply or decision appears to have been taken on the said representations. The applicants submit that meanwhile they have come across another notification issued on 21.06.2019, informing about conduct of a LDCE from among the Postman/Mailguard, Despatch Rider and MTS, for recruitment to the cadre of Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant for the vacancy year 2019. A copy of the letter along with model notification has been produced at Annexure A15. They apprehend that since 22 vacancies are still available from 2016 onwards and have remained unfilled in the RMS TV Division, there are chances of these being filled up consequent to action taken after the Annexure A15 notification. It is submitted that despite the applicants being fully qualified and available, these vacancies have not been filled up by granting them the appointment. Further, no reply has been sent to their representations.

5. It is submitted by the applicants that the Railway Mail Services (RMS) is only another division under the Postal Department. The incumbents from the regular postal divisions are granted appointment by transfer in the Railway Mail Services on their options. Further, it is clear from the Annexure A1 notification that the selection to the posts of Sorting Assistant and Postal Assistant are being carried out in a common selection procedure. Hence, there is no impediment in considering their claim for appointment to the post of Sorting Assistant in Trivandrum Division. They had been successful in the selection test conducted pursuant to the Annexure A1 notification but could not secure appointment in their Trivandrum North Division as P.As only for the reason that they did not secure a placement within the first 15 candidates. It is submitted that since they were successful in the selection procedure, there should have not been any impediment to consider their claim for being posted as Sorting Assistant in the RMS TV Division, especially as only three candidates were selected against the 25 vacancies in that post. Thus, as many as 22 vacancies are remaining unfilled due to lack of qualified hands. Though the applicants are qualified, they have not been given the said appointment. They accordingly have sought their appointment to the post of Sorting Assistants in the RMS TV Division claiming the following relief: -

“a. Declare that the applicants herein are entitled to be appointed as Sorting Assistant in the Railway Mail Service Trivandrum Division against the vacancies remaining unfilled due to lack of qualified hands pursuant to the selection conducted as per Annexure A1 notification.

b. Direct the 2nd respondent to consider the applicants for appointment as Sorting Assistants in Railway Mail Service Trivandrum Division against the vacancies remaining unfilled due to lack of qualified hands pursuant to the selection conducted as per Annexure A1 notification.

c. To grant such other reliefs as may be prayed for and the court may deem fit to grant, and

d. Grant the cost of this Original Application.”

6. In response to these contentions the respondents have filed a reply statement. They clarify that the result of the LDCE for the vacancies notified in the category of Postal Assistants/Sorting Assistans from Postman/Mail Guard/Dispatch Rider and MTS, for the vacancies notified for Trivandrum North Division for the years 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018 (April to December) had been declared on 27.02.2019. The minimum qualifying marks fixed for each paper in the LDCE was 38 for OC/UR candidates and 30 for SC/ST candidates. The total marks secured by the 4 applicants varied from 90 in the case of 1st applicant, 120 in the case of 2 nd applicant, 92 in the case of 3rd applicant and 106 for 4th applicant. All the applicants fell within the UR category. The marks secured by the last selected UR candidates for 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018 were 126, 122 and 124 respectively. Thus, the applicants having not come within the zone of consideration for selection to the Postal Assistant vacancies in the Trivandrum North Postal Division, were not selected. Meanwhile another notification was issued by the office of the second respondent on 24.06.2019 for a LDCE from the concerned cadres to the cadre of Postal Assistants/Sorting Assistants for the vacancies of the year 2019 (01.01.2019 to 31.12.2019).

7. The respondents submit that the representations of the applicants had been received. They submit that the averment of the applicants that the post of Postal Assistant in the Post Offices and Sorting Assistant in Railway Mail Service are identical is incorrect and factually misleading. The respondents contend that there are two operative wings in the Postal Department, viz., the general Post Offices (PO) and Railway Mail Services (RMS). In the P.Os, in addition to the normal postal operations, the major work done is with respect to receiving of mails from public and forwarding the same to the RMS Offices. In the RMS Offices the mails received from the P.Os are sorted based on the addresses of the addressee. The mails are then forwarded after sorting to the concerned Post Offices for delivery through train/bus/MMS vehicle etc. While the selection procedure to the post of PA/SA from the cadre of Postman/MTS/MG/Despatch Rider may be common, the pattern and syllabus of examination conducted for the post of PA amd SA are entirely different. The respondents draw attention to the Annexure A1 notification wherein it was indicated at paragraph 3(i) that the pattern and syllabus in the LDCE for Postal Assistant (Last Grade Postal) (LGP) and Sorting Assistant (Last Grade Sorting) (LGS) would be different. This was as specified in the Department of Posts letter dated 10.03.2011 as the nature of work undertaken by P.As and S.As are different.

8. It is submitted by the respondents that, as stipulated in Annexure A1, the examination which was held on 09.12.2018 was conducted with two papers - Paper-I and Paper-II. Paper-I was common for all the candidates. However, the syllabus of Paper-II was different based on the nature of work done by the P.As and S.As. For the Postal Assistants (Last Grade Postal), the syllabus for Paper-II covered knowledge of Postal/Mail Office operations with reference to PO Guides. For Sorting Assistants (Last Grade Sorting), the syllabus for Paper-II covered the Postal Manual Volume VII which deals with the work in RMS. It is reiterated that the nature of work undertaken by the Postal Assistants in Post Offices and by Sorting Assistants in Railway Mail Services are totally different and distinctive in nature. Hence, the syllabus of examination for the candidates appearing for the post of PA and SA is also different. The revised pattern and syllabus for the Departmental Examination in respect of P.As and S.As has been indicated in Department of Posts letter dated 10.03.2011, which has been produced at Annexure R1.

9. It is submitted by the respondents that all the applicants in this O.A had appeared in the LDCE for the post of PA (LGP) only. They had also attempted Part A which is the knowledge of Postal/Mail Office operations with reference to the Post Office Guides in Paper-II. Their contention to consider them for the posts of Sorting Assistant in RMS thus cannot be accepted as they did not appear for the specific examination which is applicable for the post of Sorting Assistant. They had not written Part B (Postal Manual Volume VII) for Sorting Assistant (LGS). The merit list in Paper-II for candidates who appeared for the post of P.As cannot be compared to the merit list of candidates who had appeared for the post of S.As. In other words, qualified candidates in Part A Paper-II of Postal side cannot be considered for the unfilled vacancies in RMS Units. The applicants could not find a place in the Select List of Trivandrum North Postal Division because of their lesser marks as indicated earlier when compared to others in the UR category. It is submitted that the contention that they should be considered for the posts of Sorting Assistant in RMS Division without writing Part B Paper-II examination applicable to the said post is thus fallacious.

10. A copy of the Recruitment Rules for P.As/S.As has been produced by the respondents at Annexure R2 along with reply statement. These Recruitment Rules called Department of Posts (Postal Assistant and Sorting Assistant Group 'C' Non-Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 2015 were notified on 21.05.2015. The Schedule to the Rules indicates at Column 10 & 11 in relation to the post of Postal Assistant and Sorting Assistant (in offices other than Foreign Post Organisation) that 50% of the posts would be filled up by promotion through a Limited Departmental Competitive Examination, failing which by direct recruitment of Gramin Dak Sevaks of the recruiting division or unit on fulfilling of certain conditions. Further, only Postman/Mail Guard, in the Pay Band I of Rs.5200-20200 + Grade Pay of Rs.2000/- of the concerned Unit/Division with three years of regular service in the Grade, will be considered. In other words, the Recruitment Rules have provided that recruitment to the post of PA/SA to the extent of 50% is to be done by promotion through a LDCE, failing which it would be offered to the Gramin Dak Sevaks (GDS) of the recruiting division or unit on the basis of the examination limited to GDS under direct recruitment. It is submitted that this implies that if vacancies are left after filling the candidates who came out successful, the same should be filled up from the list of surplus qualified candidates of the concerned division or neighbouring division, i.e., the unfilled LGO vacancies of a particular Postal Division (LGP) should be offered to the surplus qualified candidates of the same postal division or neighboring postal division. Similarly, LGO vacancies of a particular RMS Division (LGS) should be offered to the surplus qualified candidates of the same RMS division or neighboring RMS division. Even after that if vacancies are again left to be filled up GDS of the Recruiting Division/Unit under Direct Recruitment should be given a chance. Thus, there is no provision to consider surplus qualified candidates of Postal Divisions to RMS units.

11. In other words, it is submitted that the applicants who had appeared for the examination conducted for the post of Postal Assistant cannot stake claim for unfilled vacancies of Sorting Assistants therein. The claim of the applicants is against the provisions of Annexure R2 Recruitment Rules. It is submitted that the allotment of surplus qualified candidates is according to the merit of the candidates in the examination, the availability of vacancies in the relevant category and the recruitment year. It is further submitted that during the recruitment years in question, there were more meritorious candidates than the applicants in other Postal divisions, who could not find a place in the merit list of their respective division or in the surplus list. The details of such surplus qualified candidates and their allotment to divisions/units issued by the office of the 2nd respondent by letter dated 12.06.2019 is produced at Annexure R3. It is abundantly clear from Annexure R3 that no candidate working in a postal division has been allotted to another RMS division and vice-versa.

12. Effectively thus, the respondents have submitted that these applicants, who were working and allotted under Trivandrum (North) Postal Division, were eligible to appear for the LDCE to the post of Postal Assistants of Trivandrum (North) division only. If they come within the meritorious list of surplus qualified candidates, they would be considered at best for the posts of Postal Assistant in a neighboring Postal Division. However, their marks were not high enough even for such consideration under their category. It is also clear from the list at Annexure R3 that none of the applicants find place in the list of surplus candidates. Hence, they cannot be considered for appointment in other postal divisions as well, owing to their lower marks as compared to the others in their category.

13. In addition to the above clarifications, it is also submitted that besides the pattern and syllabus of examination for the posts of Postal Assistant and Sorting Assistant being different, the averment of the applicants that the incumbents from postal divisions are granted appointment by transfer to the RMS on their option is fallacious. As per the existing Recruitment Rules, any official recruited to a particular post, i.e., PA or SA is granted transfer only from his present postal division or RMS division to another postal division or RMS division respectively. No official of a postal division is granted transfer to the RMS division. The applicants, having appeared for the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) which was competitive and not just qualifying in nature, did not inherit any rights or privileges in qualifying the examination. They did not feature within the first 15 ranks in Trivandrum North Postal Division. Neither could they be considered for the unfilled post of Postal Assistants in other Postal Divisions in Kerala Circle due to their lower merit. Thus qualifying in the LDCE has not given them any specific or special right for being considered for the unfilled vacancies of Sorting Assistants in RMS TV Division. This is especially underlined by the fact that the syllabus for the post of Sorting Assistant examination is different from that of the syllabus for the post of Postal Assistants examination. As per the Recruitment Rules in force, all unfilled vacancies after conducting of LDCE would have to be offered to Gramin Dak Sevak on the basis of merit in the examination, failing which the vacancies form part of the Direct Recruitment of next year. The representations of the applicants were considered by the 2nd respondent and it was seen that they could not be adjusted even among the list of surplus candidates.

14. When the matter came up before this Tribunal on 26.07.2019, it was directed that any selection done in consequence to the Annexure A15 notification would be subject to the outcome of the O.A. The Annexure A15 communication was issued in regard to the conduct of LDCE for the post of PA and SA from among the Postman/Mail Guard, Despatch Rider and MTS for the vacancy year 2019 (01.01.2019 – 31.12.2019). It is submitted that the Annexure A15 notification has no relevance to the present case and is not connected to the issues raised in the O.A. The LDCE as per Annexure A15 was conducted on 15.09.2019 and all the applicants herein had appeared in the same. It is submitted that they would have to be considered for the posts of PA as per their merit in the said examination.

15. The applicant has countered some of the above contentions in their rejoinder. It is submitted that the Recruitment Rules do not distinguish between the post of PA and SA. It is not that they are aggrieved by their non-selection for the post of Postal Assistant in Trivandrum North Division. It is submitted that they are aggrieved by non-consideration of their claim to be posted as Sorting Assistant in the RMS Trivandrum Division. It is reiterated that there are no separate Recruitment Rules for the posts of PA and SA. Both are covered by the aforementioned 2015 Recruitment Rules. Further, it is submitted that a clarification was issued by the 1st respondent, Secretary, Department of Posts on 26.07.2019, whereby, it was clarified that combined merit list of all those candidates, who were not allocated to their respective parent Unit/Division, shall be prepared at Circle Level for allocation of Unit/Division to the extent of available vacancy. A copy of the circular dated 26.07.2019 in this connection has been produced at Annexure A16. As per this Circular which is a clarification regarding surplus qualified candidates, the competent authority has approved a certain 'order of selection' and allotment of candidates for appointment as Postal Assistant and Sorting Assistant for promotion through the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination and direct recruitment of Gramin Dak Sevaks (GDS) on the basis of competitive examination. It is contended by the applicant that this is applicable from the year 2016 itself as the clarification is on the 2015 Rules. It is contended that, as mentioned earlier, the Rules had never distinguished between P.A's and S.A's. Thus the entire group of surplus candidates has been treated as 'one pool' available for adjustment against either the post of PA or SA as it is made available. Thus it is submitted that the respondents are not following their own rules. The clarification at Annexure A16 makes it possible for surplus P.A's to be allotted as S.A's in other units/divisions such as RMS-TV Division. Underlining this, the applicants have also furnished a copy of another clarification dated 06.09.2019 at Annexure A17 in their rejoinder in relation to the recruitment to the post of PA/SA. At paragraph 4 of the letter it is to be noted that the response to a 'frequently asked question' as to whether a Surplus Qualified MTS/Postman of a Postal Division may be allotted to RMS Division/Unit and vide versa under 'failing which' clause (b) of Directorate letter dated 26.07.2019 (Annexure A17) was in the positive.

16. The applicant submits that the above establishes that there is no bar for the applicants to be considered against the vacancies in the RMS TV Division. It is submitted that these clarifications at Annexures A16 and A17 have not been taken into account by the respondents. They have suppressed in their reply statement the point that these clarifications to the Rules would date back from the date of the Rules itself. They are not to be considered to have only a prospective effect. Further as per information gathered under the Right to Information Act, there are as many as 104 vacancies in RMS TV Division as on 10.02.2020. Similarly, there are 89 vacancies in the post of Sorting Assistant from 2015 onwards in RMS Ernakulam Division and 61 vacancies in RMS Calicut Division. Hence, on all these considerations, including these clarifications, the applicants have submitted that they are fully liable to be considered for the post of Sorting Assistant in the RMS.

17. A further contention made in the rejoinder by the applicant is that the contentions of the respondents that transfer from the Postal Division to RMS Division is impermissible because of the 'difference in the syllabus' for the Paper-II of the LDCE is incorrect. It is submitted that there are ample instances wherein a Sorting Assistant from RMS has been granted a transfer posting to Postal Division and vice versa. As an example, the applicants point to the case of one Mrs. Lisie who was appointed as Sorting Assistant in RMS Division and who is now working as Postal Assistant in Trivandrum Division. Further, one Mr. Sajeev who was appointed as Postman at Chathanoor was later granted appointment as Mail Guard. Thus, the posts of PA and SA are interchangeable and appointments by transfer from the regular Postal Division to RMS and vice-versa have long been permitted. While it is accepted that there no rights or privileges are inherited by the applicants on qualifying the LDCE, the fact is that it is the qualification gained by passing the LDCE that accrues them the right to be appointed against the promotion vacancies. Despite the availability of sufficient candidates who have qualified in the LDCE, it appears that the respondents are adamant about setting apart vacancies for the GDS only.

18. However in response to these contentions, the respondents have filed a reply statement to the rejoinder. It is submitted by the respondents that as per the Recruitment Rules of 2015, which were in operation at the time when the applicants written the examination in 2018, all the unfilled LGO vacancies should be offered only to GDS of Recruiting Division/Unit under Direct Recruitment. There was no provision as per these Rules to consider the surplus qualified candidates of Postal divisions in RMS Units. The pattern and syllabus of the Examination held on 09.12.2018 for the Cadre of Postal Assistant in Post Offices and Sorting Assistants in RMS Offices was different. The details in this regard have already been brought out earlier in this reply statement. The Paper-II was completely different for Postal Assistants and Sorting Assistants. The candidates had to appear specifically either for Postal Assistants or for Sorting Assistants. These applicants had not appeared in the examination for Sorting Assistant and their merit in Paper-II applicable to Postal Assistants cannot be compared to the merit list of Sorting Assistant candidates. Therefore, the surplus qualified candidates in Postal Assistants cannot be considered for unfilled vacancies in RMS Units for Sorting Assistants as per the then Rules. Further, the clarification issued vide letter dated 26.07.2019 at Annexure A16 was issued after announcement of the result of the surplus qualified candidates on 12.06.2019 of the examination held on 09.12.2018. Hence, the clarification is not applicable to the examination held on 09.12.2018. The clarification dated 26.07.2019 and 06.09.2019 (Annexures A16 and A17) was made applicable to all examinations held after the issuance of clarifications. Further, the contention of the applicants that the unfilled vacancies of RMS TV Division of 2016 to 2018 were notified in letter dated 24.06.2019 is not true. The letter of 24.06.2019 produced at Annexure R5 in connection with the recruitment of PA/SA from Postman Mail Guard MTS for the year 2019 only, i.e., for the period from 01.01.2019 to 31.12.2019.

19. What is being reiterated by the respondents from the above, in short, is that the averment of the applicants that a transfer or allotment from a Postal Divisions to a RMS Division and vice-versa was possible at the time the applicant had appeared for the LDCE and the results were declared was actually not the procedure being followed. Not just that, it is reiterated that the examination syllabus and the pattern and papers were different. It is also contended by the respondents that the operative wings of the Postal Department have a different work profile as compared to the Railway Mail Services (RMS). In Post Offices (P.Os), in addition to Postal Operations like eMoney Order, Savings Bank, booking of ordinary and accountable mails, delivery of mails, etc., the major work done is with respect to receiving of mails from public and forwarding the same to the RMS Offices. Later, in the RMS Offices, the mails received from the P.Os are sorted based on the addresses of addressees and after sorting, the mails are forwarded to the concerned post offices for delivery through train/bus/MMS vehicle etc. What is to be noted is that that though the selection procedure to the posts of Postal Assistant (PA) and Sorting Assistant (SA) from the cadre of Postman/MTS/MG/Despatch Rider is common, the pattern and syllabus of examination conducted for the posts of Postal Assistant and Sorting Assistant were entirely different. The Department has brought out how the nature of work undertaken by the Postal Assistants in Post Offices and Sorting Assistants in RMS are different in the two cadres. Further, the syllabus of examination was also different. Hence, the list of candidates who had appeared and may have qualified for the post of PA cannot be compared with the merit list/surplus list of candidates who appeared for the post of SA. Hence, the qualified candidates in Part A Paper II of Postal side cannot be considered for the unfilled vacancies in RMS Units which is reserved for those who have appeared for examination in Part B Paper II Postal Manual Volume VII.

20. Clarifying the issue in relation to transfer of Smt. Lissy from the RMS which was raised by the applicants in the rejoinder, it is submitted that the said Smt. Lissy was initially appointed as Sorting Assistant in RMS T V Division. As she was affected with a brain tumor, she was unable to do the work of a Sorting Assistant. She was, therefore, transferred to Trivandrum North Postal Division on medical grounds. This transfer cannot therefore be considered as the normal course. In regard to the case of Shri Sajeev Kumar, it appears that he was working as GDS in RMS TV Division itself. He was provisionally appointed as Postman and was attached to Kottarakara Sub Division in compliance with the interim order of this Tribunal in O.A 56/2013. Later, in pursuance of the orders of this Tribunal in O.A 1092/2014 filed by Sri Sajeev Kumar R, Postman Pallickal Kottarakara SO, he was transferred and posted as Mail Guard in RMS T V Division under the provisions of Rule – 38 of Postal Manual Volume IV. He joined there on 13.06.2016. It is submitted that these orders cannot be taken as a precedent for the case built up by the applicants. The simple fact of the matter was that the applicants, who had not secured sufficient marks, could not be considered for appointment as PA in their own Divisions or in neighboring divisions as per the Rules. Further, as per the Recruitment Rules, 50% of the posts of PA/SA were to be filled up by way of promotion through LDCE, failing which it had to be offered to the Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) of the recruiting division or unit on the basis of the examination limited to GDS under direct recruitment, failing which, it was to be offered for open market recruitment. The department can only act as per the Recruitment Rules and cannot override the same.

21. Having carefully considered all the above contentions and also after going through the records, we do not find a sufficient case has been built by the applicants for a consideration of their claim as for appointment as Sorting Assistants in RMS TV Division. The Rules and instructions which stood at that particular point of time appear not to allow the consideration of their claim for posting as Sorting Assistants. It is clear that the applicant did not apply or appear for the examination for promotion as Sorting Assistants which involved a different pattern and syllabus. They could not therefore be considered for the same. They had applied for the post of Postal Assistants in which examination they were unsuccessful in the sense that their ranks were lower. Nor were their marks sufficiently high enough for consideration for appointment in other divisions within the circle. The clarifications at Annexures A16 and A17 in relation to how the allocation to these posts have to be considered even if favouring the applicants, have been sought to be explained by the respondents as only having prospective effect and not having retrospective effect. It is seen that the clarification had been issued after the announcement of the results of the surplus qualified candidates on 12.06.2019, based on their examination of 09.12.2018. The clarifications were issued on 26.07.2019 (Annexure A16) and 06.09.2019 (Annexure A17) and have been made applicable to the examination held after the issue of the clarifications.

22. Besides the above, it is clear to us that the procedure as well as the notifications at Annexure A1 had, ab initio, laid down that there are different procedures for the post of PA/SA. These were never questioned by the applicants at any stage. They would have known very well when writing the examination that they were being considered only in the cadre of PA. While Recruitment Rules for both the posts of P.A and S.A may be the same, the process of recruitment was different in each case. Further, there does not seem to be sufficient data provided to accept the contention of the applicants that transfer between the cadres of PA & SA is common. The background of the two cases that were brought forth by the applicants by way of examples have been adequately explained by the respondents. Thus, it is fairly clear that the cadres of SA & PA, worked in two separate wings of the Postal Service namely in the Post Offices and the Railway Mail Service. These wings were functionally separate even if the promotion/recruitment Rules may be the same. As per the information provided of the vacant posts after adjustment of surplus candidates etc., it appears that these have to be offered to GDS candidates or put forth for direct recruitment. It appears that this procedure had been commonly followed and it would not be in the fitness of things at this stage for interference in a well laid down and accepted procedure, which is part of the practice within the postal department.

23. Overall, it therefore appears that the contentions of the applicants seem more in the nature of an afterthought. They had appeared in the examination for Postal Assistants and decided to press their luck for being considered for the post of Sorting Assistants. Otherwise they would have attacked the very procedure of selection which allowed for the process to take place by holding two separate examinations for PaperII for the post, i.e., a specific Paper-II for Postal Assistants and another one for the post of Sorting Assistants. In effect, therefore, we do not find that a sufficient case has been made and in view of all the above considerations, we do not find in favour of the applicants in the O.A

24. The O.A is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.