ORDER
Shanker Raju, Member (J)
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. Non-accord of permission to appear in a special examination for filling up the backlog vacancies of SC/ST for promotion of departmental lower grade officials (LGO) to the cadre of Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant, which was held on 11.12.2005 is the grievance of the applicant in the present OA.
3. Learned Counsel for applicant, at the outset, by referring to a letter dated 28.5.2002 issued by Ministry of Communications, which pertains to recruitment to the cadre of PA/SA in column 8 of the clarification, would contend that restriction of six chances in LGO examinations would be applicable only in normal course and such a condition would not be an impediment for the applicant. Accordingly, it is stated that the application of the applicant in response to the special examination, despite the fact that he has availed of six chances, is against the decision of the postal communication. This, according to the applicant, has not only deprived him for participating in the selection but also deprivation of permission whereby the ineligible persons having promoted, the applicant has been rendered junior.
4. Respondents learned Counsel, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the aforesaid and by referring to the application form of 2002, stated that the applicant having availed of six chances, he is not entitled to appear for special chance.
5. We have carefully considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the material on record. When the decision has been taken at the level of Assistant Director, SPM, who has clarified that restriction of six chances in LGO examination is not an impediment for special recruitment drive to clear the backlog vacancies of reserved categories, the special examination, which is notified on 18.10.2005 cannot be an impediment for the applicant, despite the fact that he has already availed of six chances.
6. Though the respondents in the impugned order have stated that despite availing of six chances applicant has appeared in 2001 examination but for want of any averment as to this examination being special examination to fill up the backlog of reserved vacancies, respondents action not to allow the applicant to participate in the special examination is clearly against the norms laid down by them, which cannot be countenanced in law.
7. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, OA is allowed. Impugned order is set aside. Respondents are directed to hold the LGO examination for the applicant for the post of PA/SA or in alternative allow the applicant to appear in LGO examination to be held in future. In the event he qualifies for the promotion, the promotion would relate back to the date of his junior having been promoted to the said post. The consequential benefits would follow, however, in accordance with law. No costs.