The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.22476 of 2025 Bhakta Batsala Pradhan and others ….. Petitioners Mr.Rakesh Sahu, Advocate -versus- ..... Opp. Parties Union of India and others CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. MISHRA Order No. ORDER 03.09.2025 02. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode). This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 01.08.2025 passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.260/00265 of 2025 under Annexure-5. It appears that seventeen persons filed the Original Application with the following prayer:- “8. RELIEF (s) SOUGHT FOR: In view of the facts stated in Paragraphs - 4 and 5 above, the Applicants humbly pray for Page 1 of 6 the following relief (s); (a) The surplus result of Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) for recruitment to the cadre of Postman, Mail Guard and Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS) from Garmin Dak Sevak (GDS) candidates for resultant vacancy arises from Departmental promotion in Postal Assistant (PA)/ Sorting Assistant (SA) pursuant to declaration of result of PA/SA on 27.03.2025 be published within a stipulated period of time. (b) The applicants be allowed the benefits of surplus result as indicated above with all consequential service benefits. (c) Pass any other order/orders as would be deemed just and proper”. After issuance of notice, the matter was finally taken up for hearing and the impugned order was passed. The learned Tribunal in the operative part of the impugned order has held as follows:- “We have examined the case of the applicants with reference to the arguments and pleadings along with materials placed in support thereof. Even according to the own admission of applicants the result for Page 2 of 6 recruitment to PA/SA was declared on 27.03.2025 and, thereafter promotion was effected from the cadre of Postman, mail guard and MTS, thus, obviously and axiomatically, vacancies in the grade of Postman, Mail Guard and MTS had arisen in 2025 i.e. only after their promotion to PA/SA. As such, the said vacancies in the grade of Postman, Mail Guard and MTS cannot be said to be a vacancies of 2024. The whole some stand of the Applicants is that since notification was of dated 12.06.2024 for filling up of the vacancies of PA/SA against vacancy year 2024, the resultant vacancies to be created in the cadre of Postman, Mail Guard and MIS upon their promotion is to be taken as the vacancies of 2024. This logic is not supported by any provision of Rules or Law.
Legal Reasoning
Rather, trite is the position of law that it is the year of recruitment in which vacancy occurred would be relevant dote and that if vacancy caused for any reason after the selected candidates appointed against available vacancies, it gives rise to a fresh vacancy which could not have been filled up without issuing a proper advertisement and following Page 3 of 6 the fresh selection process is a settled position of law vide Sudesh Kumar Goyal -Vrs.- The State Of Haryana, Civil Appeal No.10861 of 2013 disposed of on 21.09.2023. Further, it is a settled legal proposition that vacancies cannot be filled up over and above the number of vacancies advertised as "the recruitment of the candidates in excess of the notified vacancies is a denial and deprivation of the constitutional right under Article 14 read with Article 16(1) of the Constitution", of those persons who acquired eligibility for the post in question in accordance with the statutory rules subsequent to the date of notification of vacancies. Filling up the vacancies over the notified vacancies is neither permissible nor desirable, for the reason, that it amounts to "improper exercise of power and only in a rare and exceptional circumstance and in emergent situation, such a rule can be deviated from and such a deviation is permissible only after adopting policy decision based on some rationale", otherwise the exercise would be arbitrary. Filling up of vacancies over the notified vacancies amounts to filling up of future vacancies and thus, is not permissible in Page 4 of 6 law. (Vide Union of India -Vrs.- Ishwar Singh Khatri, 1992 SCC (L&S) 999 and Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers’ Assn. Vrs.- State of Gujarat, 1994 SCC (L&S) 1159. We have also gone through the addendum of the postal Circles mentioned above. We find that in those cases the promotions were made in 2024 and vacancies were taken as of that year. In the instant case, the Notification for PA/SA was issued on 12.06.2024, examination was held on 02.03.2025, the result was declared on 27.03.2025 and, thereafter, promotions were effected from the post of Postman/Mail guard/MTS to PA/SA. Thus, this attempt of the applicants shows their beating around the bush since as per their own admission, vacancies in the grade of Postman/Mail Guard/MTS had arisen after the promotion to PA/SA in the year 2025, which is after the calendar year of vacancy of 2024 starting from 01.01.2024 to 31.12.2024. In the circumstances, the applicants have hardly any case for the relief claimed in this OA. Hence, this OA fails”. The precise ground of challenge by the petitioner is Page 5 of 6 that vacancy occurred between 12.06.2024, the date of notification for filling up the vacancy to 02.03.2025, the date of examination should have been filed taking them to be the vacancy of 2024. It appears although the process of filling up the vacancy was initiated by the notification date 12.06.2024 but the examination could only happened on 02.03.2025 and the result was declared on 27.03.2025, because of the interim stay passed by the Tribunal in a connected matter operating. The sole ground urged by the petitioner has been dealt with by the Tribunal in the paragraph re-produced herein above. We find no reason to disagree with such finding of the Tribunal. After going through the reasoning assigned by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, we are of the view that there is no illegality or impropriety in the said order and accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merits stands dismissed. It is open to the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum for seeking appropriate remedy in accordance with law. Judge ( S.K. Sahoo) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PRAVAKAR NAYAK Pravakar Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 04-Sep-2025 21:10:38 (S.S. Mishra) Judge Page 6 of 6