Serial No. 25 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Case : SWP No. 1559/2013 IA 2257/2013 Shashi Bala W/o Sh. Shanker Dass R/o Gurha Kalyal Tehsil Billawar District, Kathua. …Petitioner (s) Through: Mr. H. C. Jalmeria, Advocate VERSUS 1. Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Post & Telegraphs, New Delhi. 2. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Jammu Division, Jammu. …Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE. ORDER 05.03.2025 1. The petitioner through the medium of the present writ petition has challenged Advertisement Notice No.ED-490/KTH dated 25.04.2013 issued by respondent No. 2, whereby applications were invited for filling up the post of Grameen Dak Sewak for Post Office in Village Gurha Kalyal, Tehsil Billawar District Kathua to the extent it provids for reservation of the said post for OBC Category. Challenge has also been thrown to communication No ED-880 dated 05.07.2013 issued by respondent No. 2, whereby the petitioner has been 2 1559 of 2013 informed that her application could not be considered, as it was received after cutoff date. 2. The facts emanating from the pleadings of the parties are that Advertisement Notification dated 25.04.2013 was issued by respondent No. 2 for filling up the vacancy of Grameen Dak Sewak for the location of Gurha Kalyal, Tehsil Billawar District Kathua. As per the said notification, the said vacancy was earmarked for OBC Category and the last date for acceptance of the application was fixed as 27.05.2013. It appears that the petitioner, who claims to be belonging to SC Category responded to the said notification by submitting his application through registered post on 24.05.2013. However according to the respondents, the said application was received by them after the last date of submission of the applications. It has been claimed by the respondents that the application of the petitioner was received on 28.05.2013, as a result of which the same could not be considered. It has been further claimed by the respondents that because the petitioner did not belong to the OBC Category, as such, she is not eligible for the said vacancy. 3. The petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents, whereby her application has been rejected, on the ground that the vacancy could not have been reserved for OBC Category because 60% of the population of Village Gurha Kalyal belongs to SC Category. It has been further contended that the post that was advertised was earlier held by a person belonging to SC Category and, therefore, upon his retirement, the post was required to be filled up from the SC Category only. It has been further contended that the petitioner had sent her application through registered post on 24.05.2013, as such, the respondents 3 1559 of 2013 could not have rejected her application because the last date for submission of application had not expired when she posted her application. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case. 5. The contention of the petitioner is that that 60% of the population of the area is of persons belonging to SC Category, therefore, the post could not have been reserved for OBC Category. Her further contention is that earlier the post was held by a person belonging to SC Category, therefore, it was required to be earmarked for said category only.The respondents on the other hand claim that vacancy was earmarked for OBC Category, as per the roster point. 6. So far as earmarking of vacancies to different reserved categories are concerned, the said subject is governed by the applicable reservation rules. Once a vacancy arises in a particular category, the same is earmarked in terms of the roster point provided in the relevant Reservation Rules. While applying the roster point, a running account is to be maintained. The question as to under which category a fresh vacancy would fall has to be determined with reference to the roster points utilized in the previous selection process. This is what has been done by the respondents in the present case. The respondents on the basis of running account maintained by them have come to a conclusion that vacancy has to be earmarked for OBC Category. The population of a particular category in an area is not determinative factor for deciding as to for which category the vacancy is to be earmarked. It is the roster account that governs the issue. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is, therefore, without any merit. 7. Apart from the above, the application of the petitioner was received by the respondents after the cutoff date. The last date for submission of the application, as per the advertisement notice was fixed as 27.05.2023. The application of the 4 1559 of 2013 petitioner though posted on 24.05.2013, was received by the respondents on 28.05.2013. The petitioner cannot claim that she had submitted her application before the cutoff date on the ground that she had posted her application on 24.05.2013. The determinative factor is the date when the application is received and not when the application is posted. The contention of the petitioner is, therefore, without any merit. The respondents were well within their powers to ignore the application of the petitioner which was received beyond the cutoff date. 8. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in the instant writ petition. The same is dismissed, accordingly. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge JAMMU 05.03.2025 Bir Whether order is reportable: Yes/No