om:60-cl-2026-jun — Central Administrative Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain public interest litigations. Only directly aggrieved individuals may approach service Tribunals

Central Administrative Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain public interest litigations. Only directly aggrieved individuals may approach service Tribunals — The chunk discusses a legal case where two applicants are challenging the appointment of Respondent 4 to a GDS post due to perceived ineligibility and lack of proper advertising of the vacancy. 4 con... — Facts: The case relates to the appointment of Respondent No. 4 to the post of Postmaster at Post Office, Baraon, District Deoria based on an alleged advertisement, dated 30-11-2009 issued by Respondent No. 3. The Applicants alleged that the advertisement was neither published in the local newspaper nor displayed on the notice board and was deliberately issued only to benefit Respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 4, who had passed the Prathama examination from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad, was selected on the basis of marks obtained therein.

Aggrieved by the alleged irregularities, Applicant No. 2 filed complaints on 21-8-2010 and 3-11-2010, following which an inquiry was initiated. During the inquiry, Respondent No. 4 was terminated on 17-1-2012 due to discrepancies in his certificates. However, the termination was later cancelled for violation of principles of natural justice and Respondent No. 4 continued in service. As the Respondent No. 4 continued in service, pending enquiry, the Applicants have approached the Hon’ble Tribunal.

The Respondents, in their counter-affidavit, stated that the GDS post became vacant due to the superannuation of Mr. Madan Mohan Pandey, a notification for filling the vacancy on 30-11-2009 was issued. The advertisement and application pro forma were circulated to various authorities and administrative offices, including the Employment Exchange and local administrative offices and were also displayed on the notice board. Seven applications were received and Respondent No. 4, who secured the highest merit based on High School marks was accordingly appointed on a contractual basis. Since the Applicants did not apply, they lack locus standi to challenge the selection process and that the OA and all connected miscellaneous applications should be dismissed.

The learned Counsel for the Applicants argued that Respondent 4 was ineligible for appointment as his Prathama certificate from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad is not a recognized qualification equivalent to High School / Matriculation for employment purposes. It was further argued that the post was not properly advertised, denying eligible Applicants an opportunity to apply. Therefore, the Applicants seek cancellation of the appointment of Respondent 4 and issuance of a fresh advertisement.

The learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, by notification, dated 21-11-2006, recognized the Prathama Examination conducted by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad as equivalent to High School / Matriculation for employment purposes. It was asserted that Respondent No. 4 secured the highest merit marks was rightly appointed. It was further argued that since the Applicants did not apply pursuant to the relevant advertisement, they had no statutory or legal right of the Applicants was affected and therefore, they had no locus standi and were not entitled to any relief.