APHC010429212025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3549] WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION NO: 22702 OF 2025 Between: 1. THE UNION OF INDIA,, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS, DEPT.OF POSTS, DAK BHAVAN SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI, REP BY ITS ASST. DIRECTOR GENERAL (GDS/PCC/PAP) 2. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,, OFFICE OF THE POSTMASTER GENERAL VISAKHAPATNAM REGION, VISAKHAPATNAM-530017 ANDHRA PRADESH STATE 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, PARVATHIPURAM MANYAM DIVISION - 535501 ANDHRA PRADESH STATE. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. KUM DUBA YAMINI, D/o Duba Balachandrudu, Aged 19 years 3-85/2, Kagithapalli Village, Parampeta (BO) Regidiamadalavalasa Mandal Vizianagaram District, Pin-532122 Andhra Pradesh State ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. G.ARUN SHOWRI(CENTRAL GOVT. COUSEL) Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following ORDER: (per NJS,J) Aggrieved by an order dated 30.09.2024 in O.A.No.20/725/2023, on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad, the present Writ Petition has been filed. 2) Heard Mr.G.Arun Showri, learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioners. 3) For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in O.A. 4) The applicant aged about 19 years, pursuant to the Notification No.17- 67/2023-GDS dated 31.07.2023 issued by the Ministry of Communications, Department of Posts, made an online application for the post of Gramin Dak Sevaks (GDS) [Branch Postmaster (BPM), Assistant Branch Postmaster (ABPM) and Dak Sevaks] and provisionally selected for the post of Branch Postmaster, Adavaram, under unreserved category within the jurisdiction of Parvathipuram S.O. While she was anticipating an appointment order, to her dismay, basing on the document verification, the 3rd respondent through letter dated 30.10.2023 informed that her candidature was rejected. The applicant’s enquiries revealed that in the documents verification her father’s name was not tallied as at the time of filling the application she inadvertently mentioned her father’s name as “DUBA BALACHANDRU” instead of “DUBA BALACHANDRUDU”. She made representation dated 31.10.2023 to the 2nd respondent along with relevant documents i.e., Aadhaar, Secondary School Certificate, Transfer Certificate, Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificates etc., and requested to consider her candidature as the omission on her part is neither willful nor wanton. The request made by her was rejected and in those circumstances she approached the learned Tribunal. 5) The respondents filed their reply statement and contested the matter with reference to the instructions contained in Para 8(x) of the Notification dated 31.07.2023. 6) The learned Tribunal after considering the matter, while opining that the submission of the application leaving two suffixing letters in the name of the father of the applicant inadvertently cannot be taken as a serious error disentitling the applicant for appointment for which she is otherwise entitled, allowed the O.A. and directed the respondents to issue appointment letter to the applicant with all consequential benefits, however, without any backwages. 7) Assailing the said order and drawing the attention of this Court to para 8(x) and other instructions to the applicants mentioned in the Notification dated 31.07.2023, the learned counsel for the petitioners made submissions to the effect that the impugned order is not sustainable. However, on consideration of the matter, this Court is not persuaded to take a different view to that of the learned Tribunal. 8) It is not in dispute that in the application form the applicant while filling up the personal details in the relevant column – father / mother’s name mentioned her father’s name as “DUBA BALACHANDRU” and as per her Secondary School Certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Andhra Pradesh, her father’s name is “DUBA BALACHANDURUDU”. However, the omission of the two suffixing letters “DU”, according to the applicant is inadvertent. Non-filling up of two suffixing letters “DU” (BALACHANDRU) in “BALACHANDRUDU” or omission of the said letters, by the applicant while mentioning her father’s name in the application, goes without saying, will not in any way effect her merit. 9) There is no total variation in the name of the applicant’s father, either, so as to doubt the details furnished by her about the family. It is not even the case of the respondents that by virtue of the omission on the part of the applicant determination of her merit gets effected. No doubt, in para 8 (x) referred to by learned counsel for the writ petitioners / respondents, there is an indication to the candidates that even if there is a small spelling error in the name of applicant’s father’s name, mother’s name etc., the same would entail in rejection of the candidature and a window was also provided which enables the candidate to modify / edit the details furnished by them and three days time was provided for the said purpose. Though no reasons were forthcoming as to why the applicant could not utilize the opportunity for modification / editing, this Court is of the opinion that it is only a procedural requirement and not substantive one like the possession of requisite qualification, merit etc., which are sine qua non for appointment. 10) As observed earlier, the inadvertent omission of suffixing two letters ”DU” in her father’s name by the applicant does not go to the root or have any effect on the very selection on merits. The learned Tribunal also opined that the same cannot be treated as a serious error or a disqualification for appointment. The rejection of the candidature of the applicant, in the attending facts and circumstances of the case, in the considered opinion of this Court, is unjust and untenable. The applicant secured cent percent in all the subjects in the SSC Examination (10th class) with CGPA of 10 is a testimony of the merit of the applicant. Such a meritorious candidate cannot be deprived of the appointment on hyper technical reasons. Therefore, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners / respondents merits no acceptance. It is pertinent to note that the Tribunal by way of an interim order directed the respondents to keep one post vacant and in view of the same, no appointment of Branch Postmaster, Adavaram was made. 11) For the aforegoing reasons and having been satisfied that there is no perversity or illegality in the order under challenge, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court see no good ground warranting to exercise powers of Certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. 12) Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed. NINALA JAYASURYA,J TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA,J Date:17.09.2025 Ssv THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION NO: 22702 OF 2025 Date:17.09.2025 Ssv