Delhi High Court
Jawahar Singh vs Union Of India And Ors on 11 December, 2014
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON: 11.12.2014
+ WP (C) 1564/2013
JAWAHAR SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Govind Narayan and
Mr. Raneev Dahiya, Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Vikas Mahajan, Standing
Counsel for UOI
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
S.RAVINDRA BHAT, J. (OPEN COURT)
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order of the CAT dated 31st
July, 2012 in OA No. 2473/2012. The CAT declined his
application for a direction to the respondent to appoint him as an
Inspector of Post.
2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner had applied and
participated in the process for recruitment to the grade of Post
Master-I in June, 2012. At that time, he was also eligible to apply
for the grade of Inspector of Posts. Concededly, there is a
difference of status in two posts, and the latter concededly carries
pay scale and grade pay which is higher to that of Post Master-I.
3. At the time he applied for the second post i.e. Inspector of
Posts, he was eligible to do so. The Department of Posts declared
the result in respect of the former post i.e. Post Master-I earlier and
consequently, the petitioner joined the training. Since he
succeeded in the selection process for the post of Inspector of
Posts, the petitioner requested that his case be considered for
appointment to the said post. The Department of Posts, however,
declined his request to be appointed as Inspector of Posts. He,
therefore, approached the Tribunal. The respondent/UOI was able
to successfully contend that, though, at the time of applying for the
post of Inspector in September, 2012, the petitioner was eligible,
but the factum that he underwent training for the post of Post
Master-I disqualified him to the appointment under the grade of
Inspector of Posts.
4. The petitioner, at the outset, urges that the very same issue
raised in these proceedings was the subject matter of the previous
decision of this Court in Union of India vs. Virender Kumar
Dahiya in Writ Petition (C) No. 4833/2014 decided on 28th
August, 2014 where, under identical circumstances, the CAT had
allowed the application of a similarly circumstanced applicant and
the challenge of Union of India against that order was declined.
5. Counsel for the respondents, however, contends that as a
matter of details, there is factual difference in the cases, in that, the
petitioner herein had accepted the promotion and underwent
training for the entire period. According to counsel, this is
sufficient distinction which the Court should take cognizance of,
and decline relief by upholding the order of the CAT.
6. This Court had in Virender Kumar Dahiya (supra) stated as
follows:-
"5. This Court has considered the submissions.
What is not disputed in this case is that on the
relevant dates for determination of eligibility, i.e.
12th May, 2011 and 30th June, 2011 - in respect of
the post of Postmaster Grade-I and Inspector of
Posts respectively, the respondent applicant was
indeed eligible for applying for both the posts. It
is also not disputed that he did so. It is an
entirely fortuitous circumstance that the
department decided to hold the selection process
of LDCE in respect of the Postmaster Grade-I
earlier than that of Inspector of Posts. Being a
meritorious candidate, the respondent applicant
was selected as Postmaster Grade-I. However,
this fortuitous circumstance is now being used
against him to prevent his legitimate claim for
competing in respect of the post of Inspector of
Posts, which concededly, carries higher pay. We
notice that the CAT had relied upon the judgment
of the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh
2003 (1) SC SLJ 56 and Mills Douglas Michael
and Ors. V. UOI and Ors. JT 1996 (4) SC 189,
where the Court had held that the eligibility of
candidate for a post has to be determined with
reference to the date of advertisement or
notification. The stand of the petitioner, to say
the least, appears to be absurd and opposed to
reason. It seeks to suppress merit and kill the
motivation of its employees to excel and
compete. In these circumstances, this Court is of
the opinion that the directions contained in the
impugned order are fair and reasonable and do
not call for interference. The writ petition is
accordingly dismissed."
7. The facts of the present case are closely parallel to that of
Virender Kumar Dahiya (supra). So far as the distinction sought
to be made by the respondent - that the petitioner underwent the
training, is concerned, the Court is of the view that these details
cannot make any radical difference. If the period of training i.e.
four weeks is taken into account, the distinction is really
insignificant. The Petitioner wan not put to notice that if he
accepts appointment as Post Master I, he would stand disqualified
from being appointed as Inspector of Posts, even though, he was
eligible to apply for the said post when he did.
8. Considering all the circumstances, for the foregoing reasons,
the petition is allowed, following the decision in Virender Kumar
Dahiya (supra); the petitioner shall be declared to be appointed as
Inspector of Posts according to merit in the selection process which
he successfully cleared, and with effect from the date on which
others were appointed. However, only notional benefit of pay
fixation and all other consequential benefits shall be given but not
the arrears of salary. The consequential orders shall be issued by
the respondents within a period of six weeks from today.
9. The petition is allowed in the above terms.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT
(JUDGE)
VIPIN SANGHI
(JUDGE)
DECEMBER 11, 2014/sd
