- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13216-DB WP No. 12318 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 12318 OF 2025 (S-CAT) BETWEEN: PRAKASH S/O NEELAYYA, AGED 41 YEARS, WORKING AS POSTAL ASSISTANT, HEAD POST OFFICE, KARKALA, RESIDING AT NO.4-9 KASHI PARARI ROAD KALLYA POST-574 110 KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RADHAKRISHNA HOLLA, ADV.) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA BY SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF POSTS DAK BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110 001. 2. DIRECTOR (DE), DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, DAK BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110001. 3. THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL KARNATAKA CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 001. Digitally signed by NANJUNDACHARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13216-DB WP No. 12318 of 2025 4. THE POSTMASTER GENERAL SOUTH KARNATAKA REGION BENGALURU-560 001. 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES PUTTUR (D.K.) DIVISION, PUTTUR-574 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SADHANA S DESAI, CGC FOR R1 TO R5) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 24.03.2025 PASSED BY THE CAT IN OA/170/00236/2023 ANNEXURE-A AND II) ALLOW THE OA/170/00236/2023 GRANTING THE RELIEF TO THE PETITIONER AS PRAYED FOR. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND) This writ petition is filed by the applicant in O.A. No.170/00236/2023, assailing the order dated 24.03.2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’). 2. The brief facts are that the petitioner, while working as a Postal Assistant at Karkala, appeared for the Limited - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13216-DB WP No. 12318 of 2025 Departmental Competitive Examination for promotion to the post of Inspector of Posts for the vacancy years 2019, 2020 and 2021. The examination was held on 25th and 26th June, 2022. There were 20 vacancies in the Karnataka Circle and 19 candidates were selected for the post. The applicant was not selected. One of the selected candidates under the UR category, Sri Ravi Sulikeri, declined the promotion, which was accepted by the Department of Posts on 08.02.2023. 3. It is pleaded that the combined marks list was published on 18.04.2023, in which it was disclosed that the petitioner had secured 771 marks and was placed at the top of the list for the Karnataka Circle. The petitioner contended that, in view of the vacancy that arose on account of the promotion declined by Sri Ravi Sulikeri, he ought to have been promoted. The Tribunal, upon considering Rule 279/1 of the Postal Manual, Volume IV, Part I, rejected the application. 4. Sri Radhakrishna Holla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that when the selection list is prepared based on marks and if one of the selected candidates does not opt for promotion, the said vacancy has to be filled by - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13216-DB WP No. 12318 of 2025 a candidate securing the highest marks in the same category. It is submitted that the case of Sri Ravi Sulikeri was considered against the Unreserved category for promotion, which he did not opt to accept. It is further submitted that, in view of Sri Ravi Sulikeri declining the promotion, the said vacancy ought to have been filled by a candidate securing the highest marks in the same category and within the same Circle. It is submitted that, as per the combined marks list at Annexure–A6, the petitioner has secured a total of 771 marks, which is the highest in the Unreserved category in the Karnataka Circle. It is therefore submitted that when the selected candidate has not accepted the promotion, the petitioner being next eligible candidate ought to have been provided the opportunity. 5. Smt. Sadhana S. Desai, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondents, submits that the selection list was prepared based on the total marks secured by the candidates who appeared in the competitive examination conducted for promotion to the cadre of Inspector of Posts. It is submitted that a list of 19 candidates selected for the post was published. It is further submitted that one of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13216-DB WP No. 12318 of 2025 candidates did not opt for promotion and the said vacancy remained unfilled. It is submitted that, as per the Postal Manual, a list of candidates securing the highest marks to the extent of the required number for that Circle is to be prepared and the rest are to be rejected. It is contended that there is no provision for preparing an additional selection list to be operated in the event any vacancy arises from among the selected candidates. It is therefore submitted that the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application. 6. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Central Government Counsel for the respondents, it is evident that the list of 19 candidates was published based on the marks secured in the departmental competitive examination conducted for promotion to the cadre of Inspector of Posts (LDCEIP) for the vacancy years 2019, 2020 and 2021, held on 25th and 26th June, 2022. The petitioner claims consideration under the Unreserved category. The candidates included in the selection list under the said category have secured marks higher than the petitioner. The combined marks list indicates that the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13216-DB WP No. 12318 of 2025 petitioner, by securing 771 marks, is placed at the top of the list in the Karnataka Circle in the said category. The contention of the petitioner is that when a vacancy arises in the list of selected candidates, on account of a selected candidate refusing to accept the promotion or for any other reason, the candidate securing the next highest marks should be promoted. We find it difficult to accept the said submission. No provision or Rule has been pointed out to this Court mandating the respondents to prepare an additional selection list to be operated against vacancies that may arise from the finally selected list of candidates. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents has drawn attention to Rule 279/1 of the Postal Manual, Volume IV, Part I. The said Rule reads as under: “From among the candidates who qualify, the Directorate will draw up separately for each Circle, a list of candidates who stand highest in the merit in the particular Circle up to the number required for that Circle and reject the rest.” On a reading of the above Rule, the Directorate is required to prepare a list of candidates who stand highest in merit in a - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13216-DB WP No. 12318 of 2025 particular Circle, up to the required number of candidates for that Circle. The Rule expressly provides for rejection of the remaining candidates. 8. On a strict interpretation of the Rule, though the petitioner has secured the highest marks after the selected candidates, his candidature stands rejected. Further, there is no provision mandating the respondents to prepare an additional list to be operated against the vacancies that arise from the final list. In the absence of such an enabling provision or Rule, the action of the respondents in not selecting the petitioner cannot be faulted. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in W.P. No.56681/2015 in support of his contention. In the said judgment, before the final selection list was announced, one of the eligible candidates had withdrawn his candidature. In that view, this Court held that the candidate securing the next highest marks ought to have been selected. However, in the present case, we notice that the withdrawal by one of the selected candidates occurred much after the publication of the final selection list. Therefore, the order of this - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13216-DB WP No. 12318 of 2025 Court cited above is of no assistance to the case of the petitioner. 10. The Tribunal, having considered the above aspects, has rightly rejected the petition. We find no infirmity or error in the order of the Tribunal warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the writ petition stands rejected. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE NC CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23