LAWS(SC)-1996-9-83

JAHAR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On September 13, 1996
JAHAR SINGH Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special leave granted. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) At all material times the appellant was - and still is - an employee of the Savings Bank Control Organisation (SBCO) , Uttar Pradesh Circle, under the Ministry of Communications, Department of Posts, New Delhi. In May 1992 while working in the Agra Head Post Office he appeared in the examination held for appointment of Accountants in the Post Office (PO) and Railway Mail Services (RMS) ; and the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Agra Division, Agra vide his letter Nos. 82/exam/po and RMS/accountant/92 dated 30-11- 1992 informed him that he had qualified for that post. The appellant, however, did not get any appointment to the post of Accountant in spite of his such qualification and, on the contrary, on 26/8/1993, he received a copy of a letter dated 23/7/1993 sent by Shri A. K. Kaushal, an Assistant Director General in the office of the Director General (Posts) , New Delhi, to Shri Jagadamba Singh, ADOS (Rectt). attached to the office of the Chief Postmaster General, U. P. Circle, intimating him that as he (the appellant) was working in SBCO as an LDC (Lower Division Clerk) he was not eligible to appear for the PO and RMS Accountant examination and his candidature may be cancelled immediately. Since this letter has an important bearing on this appeal we quote the same in extenso:

(3.) Against such cancellation of his candidature the appellant made a representation to the Director General of Posts, New Delhi which was rejected. He then filed an original application in the central Administrative tribunal (CAT) , Allahabad bench wherein he asserted that though his initial appointment in 1983 was as an LDC in SBCO, since 1/8/1991 he was working there as a Postal Assistant (PA) and the permission that was granted to him to appear in the examination for appointment as an Accountant was unqualified - and not provisional. He, therefore, submitted that the respondents were not justified in rejecting his claim for appointment to that post after his success in the examination.