Union Of India & Another vs Sudhakar Ramkrushna Akhre & ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 2714 Bom

     WP1035.2000 [J].odt                               1

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                                        
                                   NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR




                                                               
                               WRIT PETITION NO.1035 OF 2000


     1]     Union of India, through 
            Secretary of Post & Telegraph,




                                                              
            Sanchar Bhawan, New Delhi.

     2]     Superintendent of Post Offices,
            Wardha Division,
            Tahsil & District - Wardha.                          ..             Petitioners




                                                  
                              ig    .. Versus ..

     1]     Sudhakar s/o Ramkrushna Akhre,
            Aged 34 years, Occupation-Government
                            
            Servant, Resident of Pahur, Tah. Babulgaon,
            District - Yavatmal.

     2]     Deepak s/o Laxman Jugnake,
            Aged 35 years, Occupation-Government
      

            Service, Resident of Pahur, Tah. Babulgaon,
            District-Yavatmal.                       ..                         Respondents
   



                    ..........
     Shri R.S. Sundaram, counsel for the petitioners,





     None for the respondents.
                 ..........

                                    CORAM :  SMT. VASANTI  A. NAIK  AND
                                             MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.

DATED : JUNE 10, 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)

By this writ petition, the petitioners challenge the order of the

Central Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur dated 15.10.1999 allowing an

Original Application filed by the respondent no.1 and directing the petitioners

to appoint the respondent no.1 as E.D.B.P.M. By the impugned order, the

Tribunal quashed and set aside the appointment of the respondent no.2 on the

post of E.D.B.P.M..

In pursuance of an advertisement issued by the petitioners for

appointment to the post of E.D.B.P.M. Pahur, the respondent nos.1 and 2

applied along with the other candidates. The respondent no.2 was selected

and appointed by the order dated 6.8.1998. Since by the appointment of the

respondent no.2, the candidature of the respondent no.1 was rejected, the

respondent no.1 filed Original Application No.907/1998 before the Central

Administrative Tribunal. The respondent no.1 challenged the order of

appointment of the respondent no.2 and sought his appointment on the post of

E.D.B.P.M. The Tribunal, on a consideration of the material on record,

allowed the Original Application filed by the respondent no.1 and directed the

petitioners to appointment the respondent no.1 on the post of E.D.B.P.M. after

setting aside the order of the appointment of the respondent no.2. The order

of the Central Administrative Tribunal is challenged by the petitioners in the

instant petition.

This court, while admitting the writ petition, granted interim relief

in favour of the petitioners, with the result that the impugned order was stayed

and the respondent no.2 continued to work on the post of E.D.B.P.M. Pahur.

Shri Sundaram, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted

that the Tribunal was not justified in allowing the Original Application filed by

the respondent no.1 and directing the petitioners to appoint the respondent

no.1 on the post of E.D.B.P.M. by setting aside the order of appointment of the

respondent no.2. It is submitted that the selection to the post of E.D.B.P.M.

was made on the basis of the Service Rules. It is stated that as per the Service

Rules, the comparative merit of the candidates was to be judged on the basis of

the marks secured by the candidate at the S.S.C. examination and source of

income and/or the capacity of the candidate to offer a space to serve as the

agency premises for postal operation. It is submitted that the respondent no.1

had not submitted any documents to show that he possessed any landed

property, whereas the respondent no.2 had tendered the documents showing

his ownership over 1.61 HR of land. It is stated that though the respondent

no.2 secured a few marks lesser than the respondent no.1, since the

respondent no.1 did not produce any material in respect of adequate means of

livelihood in case he loses his main source of income, the petitioner rightly

appointed the respondent no.2 on the post of E.D.B.P.M. It is submitted that

the Tribunal committed a serious error in directing the petitioners to appoint

the respondent no.1. It is submitted that when the Tribunal held that the

petitioner had not committed any error in not relying on the documents that

were tendered by the respondent no.1 subsequently and not along with his

application, the Tribunal ought not have directed the petitioners to appoint the

respondent no.1 on the post of E.D.B.P.M..

None had appeared on behalf of the respondents on the previous

date of hearing. None appears on behalf of the respondents today.

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have

perused the writ petition as also the impugned order. It appears, on a perusal

of the impugned order, that the Tribunal was not justified in directing the

petitioners to appoint the respondent no.1 on the post of E.D.B.P.M. On a

reading of the relevant rules, it appears that the criteria for selection was based

on the marks secured by the candidate at the SSC examination and whether

the candidate had adequate means of livelihood in case he loses his main

source of income. In the instant case, it appears that the respondent no.1 has

secured 43.42 marks at the SSC examination, whereas the respondent no.2

had secured somewhat lesser marks i.e. 38.28%. However, along with the

application, the respondent no.2 had produced the documents to show his

ownership over 1.61 HR of land, whereas the respondent no.1 had produced

the documents showing the ownership of his father on a piece of agricultural

land. Considering the fact that the respondent no.2 was himself the owner of

the property and that he had adequate means of livelihood in case he loses his

main source of income, it appears that the petitioners appointed the

respondent no.2 on the post of E.D.B.P.M. Since it appears that the

respondent no.2 was in a position to offer the landed property to serve as

agency premises, whereas the respondent no.1 did not own the land in his

name, we do not find any illegality in the action of the petitioners in

appointing the respondent no.2 on the post of E.D.B.P.M. Merely because the

respondent no.1 had secured a few marks more than the respondent no.2, it

was not necessary for the petitioners to appoint the respondent no.1 on the

post of E.D.B.P.M. as the percentage of the marks at the S.S.C. examination

was not the only criteria for judging the merit. The Tribunal was justified in

holding that the petitioners could not have looked into the material tendered

by the respondent no.1, subsequently to show that he possesses some landed

property as the partition-deed was executed on 2.5.1989, whereas the

respondent no.2 was appointed on 6.8.1998. In the circumstances of the case,

the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside.

Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The

impugned order is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in the

aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs.

                              JUDGE                                             JUDGE




                                             
     Gulande