Devan Ramachandran,J.

1. The Union of India and its officers are before us assailing the final order of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench (“Tribunal” hereinafter), in O.A.288 of 2023 because, it has intervened with the selection it had made to the post of Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS) in the Kerala Postal Circle in the year 2022, finding that respondent No.1/original applicant is more qualified than respondents 2 and 3 herein/party respondents in the OA.

2. Sri.Vivek .A.V - learned Central Government Counsel, argued that the learned Tribunal has impermissibly innovated and has travelled much beyond the notification and the prospectus, to introduce one additional line of preference among candidates, which is untenable.

3. Sri.Vivek A.V, explained that, as per the prospectus, since the post is to be filled up from among persons having “meritorious exposure in sports”, first preference was ordered to be given to those who have represented the country in International Competitions; while the second to those who have represented a State or a Union Territory, in the Senior or Junior Level National Championships. He pointed out that the next and third preference disclosed in the prospectus, is to candidates who have participated in Inter University Competitions; and thereafter in National Sports/Games for schools, followed by two more other preferences. He showed us that, since all the respondents were equally placed, when their credentials in the Senior Level National Championships - were evaluated – being the second level of preference, since there were no candidates who had participated in International Competitions, being the 1st preference – the further choice between them could have been only as per Annexure-R1 order of the Government, which provides that the senior in age among them be given the employment. He asserted that, it is exactly this what has been done in this case, with respondents 2 and 3 being favoured with appointments. He alleged that, however, the learned Tribunal has illegally interfered with this, and has directed that the applicant be appointed, by creating a supernumerary post, for the reason that she had also obtained 1st and 2nd places in the National Junior Level Championships; while the other two respondents had both obtained only 1st and 3rd places in such. He predicated that the interpolation of such a preference by the learned tribunal is illegal; and consequently, that his clients have been left without any option, but to approach this Court.

4. Sri.Gopalakrishnan Nair – learned counsel for the 1st respondent applicant in the O.A, argued that, when the 2nd preference relate to candidates who have participated in the Senior or Junior Level National Championships, it was wholly justified for the learned tribunal to have taken the junior level competition credentials also, since all of them had obtained similar medals/positions in the Senior Level Championships. He argued that, when the 2nd preference has been worded in the manner as has been done in Annexure A1, no error can be attributed to the learned Tribunal. He prayed that this original petition be, therefore, dismissed.

5. Smt.Rekha Vasudevan – learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3, adopted all the submissions of Sri.Vivek A.V; and then supplemented it, saying that her clients were validly appointed in the year 2022 and have been continuing in service ever since. She asserted that, therefore, to disturb their appointment at this point of time, would be inequitable; and that it is presumably, therefore, that the learned Tribunal directed a supernumerary post to be created for the applicant. She, nevertheless, argued that the findings of learned Tribunal are in error; and that her clients are fully entitled to be placed above the applicant – even if she is to be appointed.

6. We find substantial force in the submissions of Sri.Vivek A.V., because as per Annexure A1 Prospectus, the 2nd preference is as under;

                  “ii. Second preference: Next preference will be given to those who have represented as State/UT in the SENIOR OR JUNIOR LEVEL NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS organized by the National Sports Federation recognised by the Department of Youth affairs and Sports or National Games organised by Indian Olympics Association and have won medals or positions up to 3rd place. Between the candidates participating in Senior and Junior National Championships/Games, the candidates having participates and won medal in senior national Championship should be given preference”.

7. It is inevitable that, while considering candidates under this preference, credentials at the Senior or Junior Level National Championships are to be taken together.

8. In the case at hand, all the candidates admittedly obtained 1st position at the Senior Level National Championships; and thereafter, a choice between them could have been done only as per Annexure R1 letter of the Directorate, dated 06.01.2021, whereby, the date of birth, and if not, the alphabetical order of the names, would have had to be adverted to.

9. This is what has been done by the petitioners, as correctly pointed out by Sri.Vivek A.V.

10. However, the learned Tribunal went one step forward and virtually introduced another level of preference, by taking the credentials of the candidates in the Junior Level National Championships in addition to the Senior level Championships; and then to hold that, since respondents 2 and 3 have obtained only 1st and 3rd medals therein, while the applicant had got 1st and 2nd medals, she is better placed than them; and hence entitled to appointment.

11. We are without doubt that such an exercise by the learned Tribunal was impermissible because, it could not have tinkered with the Prospectus in any manner whatsoever.

12. To paraphrase, when the 2nd preference is stipulated to be given to candidates who have participated either in the Senior Level or the Junior Level National Championships, and when their credentials are found to be equal at the Senior Level, then a further filtration by using the credentials in the Junior Level could not have been done at all. In fact, this goes totally contrary to Annexure A1, which provides for a mechanism where such an eventuality is to arise.

13. That being said, though we are not in favour of the directions of the learned Tribunal - to appoint the 1st respondent/applicant to a supernumerary post, we are pursuaded to offer her a limited relief because we are told that the 3rd respondent has subsequently resigned from service, on 20.03.2025. This Court, therefore, put it to the petitioners whether they would be in a position to accommodate the 1st respondent/ applicant to that position; but Sri.Vivek A.V. responded saying that it is not possible because, even though there were selections conducted for filling up subsequent vacancies after the year 2021, the 1st respondent/ applicant had not applied in such processes.

14. The afore argument is limpidly incongruous because, until today, the 1st respondent/applicant was declared to be entitled to appointment under the order impugned. It is only now because of our intervention, that she would lose that benefit. Axiomatically, she had no reason to apply for any other vacancy, since she was surely anticipating appointment.

15. We, therefore, are of the firm view that, though we are not in favour of the impugned order, the 1st respondent/applicant must be left liberty to approach the competent Authorities with an appropriate representation, which will then be required to be considered as per law. This is not because, we find an affirmative right in favour of the 1st respondent, but because she can be construed to be the victim of circumstances, having harboured anticipation and hope of getting appointment for the last more than five years. Every life is important, as are the hopes and expectations.

We, therefore, allow this original petition and set aside the impugned final order of the learned Tribunal; however, leaving liberty to the 1st respondent/applicant to move the 2nd petitioner with an appropriate representation seeking appointment, to the vacancy created consequent to the resignation of the 3rd respondent, or any other vacancy available now; and if this is done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the same shall be considered by the said Authority, within a period of three months thereafter.

This Original Petition is thus disposed of.