M GOPAKUMAR Vs. POSTMASTER GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Second respondent issued a notification inviting applications for appointment to the post of Extra Departmental Branch Post Master at Kuttussery Post Office. Petitioner, third respondent and several other persons applied. Selection was to be made by verification of the original testimonials and the candidate who scored the highest marks at the S.S.L.C. level would be declared as selected. Petitioner was served with a letter dated 20.12.1999 directing to appear with all original documents in the office of the Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Palakkad on 31.12.1999. Petitioner appeared before the second respondent on the said day with all original documents. Petitioner has passed S.S.L.C. conducted by the Tamil Nadu Government with 87.8 percentage of marks. He was awaiting appointment order. However, he came to know that the third respondent who had secured 79.5% marks in S.S.L.C. was selected and appointed. Having come to know about the selection of third respondent petitioner preferred a representation dated 24.1.2000 highlighting the illegality in the conduct of selection. No reply was received. Consequently he filed O.A. 136/2000. Tribunal found no malafides in the selection and held that the petitioner could not prove that he had obtained 439 marks out of 500 marks. Application was therefore rejected by the Tribunal at the admission stage. Aggrieved by the same this Writ Petition is preferred.

(2.) Counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri. T.C. Govindaswamy submitted that there is no justification in selecting the third respondent overlooking the legitimate claim of the petitioner. According to the counsel, going by the Secondary School Leaving Certificate Ext. P2 it is evident that he got 439 marks out of 500. In other words, he had 87.8% marks in S.S.L.C. At the same time the third respondent secured only 79.5%. Counsel submitted that the reason in selecting third respondent is presumably on the basis of Ext. P7 letter of the Assistant Director General of Department of Posts, India. Counsel submitted mere fact that he had worked as Agent for Life Insurance Corporation of India would not make him ineligible to apply for the post. Counsel submitted that the direction by the Assistant Director is illegal and violative of Art.14 of the Constitution of India. Counsel also placed reliance of the decision of the Apex Court in Ananta Prasad Jenna v. Union of India and Others, 2001 SCC (L&S) 654 .

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1, 2 and 4. Department in the counter affidavit admitted the fact that petitioner had secured more marks than the third respondent. In other words, fact that he had got 87.8% of marks has not been controverted in the counter affidavit. The only reason stated in the counter affidavit in not selecting the petitioner was that he was functioning as L.I.C. agent and therefore going by the letter of the Director petitioner was ineligible to consider for appointment to the post of Extra Departmental Branch Post Master.