ups_00223 — Appointment to the post of GDS, MD / MC, in this case, appointment for that post at Khetopather Branch Post Office, is to be done considering all applications forwarded by employment exchange and receipt of applications directly within the last stipulated date for receipt of direct applications. In the present case, the Applicant applied directly within the last date as provided for and hence rejection of his case as not being recommended by Employment is irregular and hence fresh selection for

UPS

Appointment to the post of GDS, MD / MC, in this case, appointment for that post at Khetopather Branch Post Office, is to be done considering all applications forwarded by employment exchange and receipt of applications directly within the last stipulated date for receipt of direct applications. In the present case, the Applicant applied directly within the last date as provided for and hence rejection of his case as not being recommended by Employment is irregular and hence fresh selection for the above said post was ordered — The given chunk pertains to a case, O.A. No. 248 of 2011, concerning the appointment to the post of GDS, MD / MC at Khetopather Branch Post Office. The Applicant applied directly for the post as his ... — Facts : The Applicant, who applied for the post of GDS, MD / MC, Khetopather, had studied H.S.L.C. in 1988. He applied for the post as he had secured 50% marks in H.S.L.C. He belongs to 'Muttock' community recognized as MOBC in Assam. He further states that he registered his name in Employment Exchange, Tinsukia and given Registration No. 245 of 2005, dated 16-2-2005 and renewed the same up to 7-2-2011. On 27-7-2010, Superintendent of Post Offices, Tinsukia Division, intimated the Employment Exchange to forward names of the candidates by 25-8-2010 to fill up that post of GDS / MD / MC, Khetopather Branch P.O. The name of the Applicant was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange. Hence he submitted an application directly for that post before Inspector of Posts, Tinsukia Division on 9-10-2010 within the prescribed period for submission of application which reached Sub-Divisional Inspector Posts, R-4 herein on 27-9-2011 before closure of date of submission of application. He was not called for interview and two other candidates were called for the interview. R-6, Dharmendra Singh, was selected against which the Applicant states that R-6 secured only 47% of marks whereas he obtained 50% in H.S.L.C. and hence R-6 selection is arbitrary. The Respondents contends that the name of the Applicant was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The Respondents further state that out of 4 candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange R-6 was found fit and hence selected. The application of the Applicant was received on 15-9-2010 after the prescribed time-limit of 25-8-2010. Hence the application of the Applicant could not be accepted. In this case, though notice was served on R-6, he did not respond. The Applicant applied for the post directly as his name was not sponsored by Employment Exchange. He further states that the application of the Applicant was sent directly in time, which is denied by Respondents and the denial is incorrect. He also submitted RTI application, dated 14-1-2011 to ascertain the facts for selection of R-6 and also last date for the submission of application for that advertised post. Reply against R-5 assertion regarding the last date of submission of application the reply is 25-8-2010 and against R-6 RTI application the said date is 9-10-2010. The Applicant further asserts that Clause 18 (A) of the modified instructions of "Department of Posts, Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2001", vacancies can be filled either by candidates from Employment Exchange or an application received directly based on merit consideration. The Applicant avers that as he submitted his application before scheduled date of receipt of applications, i.e. 9-10-2010, he should have been considered for that post. However, the Respondent denies the receipt of the application of the Applicant before the scheduled date. The Tribunal stated that the last date receipt of applications with necessary documents is 9-10-2010. The Applicant had also renewed his candidature in Employment Exchange up to 7-2-2011. The Applicant had secured higher marks in H.S.L.C. compared to R-6. The selection for that post is based on marks secured in H.S.L.C. or Matriculation without any weightage for higher educational qualification higher than H.S.L.C. It is further said by the Tribunal that receipt of application from Employment Exchange is 25-8-2010 and for direct application it was 9-10-2010. Based on the above analysis, it was held:

UPS

Appointment to the post of GDS, MD / MC, in this case, appointment for that post at Khetopather Branch Post Office, is to be done considering all applications forwarded by employment exchange and receipt of applications directly within the last stipulated date for receipt of direct applications. In the present case, the Applicant applied directly within the last date as provided for and hence rejection of his case as not being recommended by Employment is irregular and hence fresh selection for the above said post was ordered — The given chunk pertains to a case, O.A. No. 248 of 2011, concerning the appointment to the post of GDS, MD / MC at Khetopather Branch Post Office. The Applicant applied directly for the post as his ... — Facts : The Applicant, who applied for the post of GDS, MD / MC, Khetopather, had studied H.S.L.C. in 1988. He applied for the post as he had secured 50% marks in H.S.L.C. He belongs to 'Muttock' community recognized as MOBC in Assam. He further states that he registered his name in Employment Exchange, Tinsukia and given Registration No. 245 of 2005, dated 16-2-2005 and renewed the same up to 7-2-2011. On 27-7-2010, Superintendent of Post Offices, Tinsukia Division, intimated the Employment Exchange to forward names of the candidates by 25-8-2010 to fill up that post of GDS / MD / MC, Khetopather Branch P.O. The name of the Applicant was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange. Hence he submitted an application directly for that post before Inspector of Posts, Tinsukia Division on 9-10-2010 within the prescribed period for submission of application which reached Sub-Divisional Inspector Posts, R-4 herein on 27-9-2011 before closure of date of submission of application. He was not called for interview and two other candidates were called for the interview. R-6, Dharmendra Singh, was selected against which the Applicant states that R-6 secured only 47% of marks whereas he obtained 50% in H.S.L.C. and hence R-6 selection is arbitrary. The Respondents contends that the name of the Applicant was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The Respondents further state that out of 4 candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange R-6 was found fit and hence selected. The application of the Applicant was received on 15-9-2010 after the prescribed time-limit of 25-8-2010. Hence the application of the Applicant could not be accepted. In this case, though notice was served on R-6, he did not respond. The Applicant applied for the post directly as his name was not sponsored by Employment Exchange. He further states that the application of the Applicant was sent directly in time, which is denied by Respondents and the denial is incorrect. He also submitted RTI application, dated 14-1-2011 to ascertain the facts for selection of R-6 and also last date for the submission of application for that advertised post. Reply against R-5 assertion regarding the last date of submission of application the reply is 25-8-2010 and against R-6 RTI application the said date is 9-10-2010. The Applicant further asserts that Clause 18 (A) of the modified instructions of "Department of Posts, Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2001", vacancies can be filled either by candidates from Employment Exchange or an application received directly based on merit consideration. The Applicant avers that as he submitted his application before scheduled date of receipt of applications, i.e. 9-10-2010, he should have been considered for that post. However, the Respondent denies the receipt of the application of the Applicant before the scheduled date. The Tribunal stated that the last date receipt of applications with necessary documents is 9-10-2010. The Applicant had also renewed his candidature in Employment Exchange up to 7-2-2011. The Applicant had secured higher marks in H.S.L.C. compared to R-6. The selection for that post is based on marks secured in H.S.L.C. or Matriculation without any weightage for higher educational qualification higher than H.S.L.C. It is further said by the Tribunal that receipt of application from Employment Exchange is 25-8-2010 and for direct application it was 9-10-2010. Based on the above analysis, it was held:

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text