POSTMASTER Vs. SAVITHRY AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We do not agree with the learned single Judge that the impugned orders (marked as Ext. P-l in each case) are liable to be quashed merely because they do not furnish the reasons for not admitting the petitioners in these cases to the promotion examination it was we think open to the authorities concerned, namely, the appellants, to satisfy the court by affidavit or other evidence that there were good and sufficient reasons and that their action was not arbitrary. We do not read the decisions relied upon by the learned single Judge as precluding this. Nevertheless, we do not think that the order he actually made quashing the impugned order calls for interference. For, it transpires from the affidavits filed by the appellants that the only reason for withholding permission was the fact that the petitioners were absent from duty on the. 19th Sept. 1968, the day of the one-day token strike by the employees of the Central Government. It was by reason of this one day's "unauthorised absence" that the authorities held that there was a break in service depriving the petitioners of the five years' continuous service necessary for eligibility to sit for the examination according to the departmental rules which it is said are not statutory rules. It would also appear, for, no other reason is stated, that it was this unauthorised absence that induced the authorities to hold that the petitioners had not "a good record of work, conduct and character" which is another condition for eligibility. Now, the petitioners had represented to the authorities that they had not joined the strike and had, in fact, made earnest attempts to report for duty on the day in question but were physically prevented from doing so by the "rowdy elements" among the strikers. If this be true there can be no doubt that nobody with the least sense of justice or fairplay would regard the absence as unauthorised and as meriting a break in service. He would condone the absence, treating it, if necessary, as absence on leave, .so that it would not be unauthorised. If that were done the petitioners would be eligible to take the examination and the refusal to allow or them to take it would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution whether or not the departmental rules in question are statutory rules. And, all that the learned single Judge's order means is that the appellants should dispose of the representations made by the petitioners before denying them admission to the examination.

(2.) The petitioners have sat for the examination on the strength of interlocutory orders made by the learned single Judge but their results have been withheld pending the final disposal of the cases. The appellants will now proceed to dispose of the representations made by the petitioners after due hearing. If they are satisfied that the petitioners had good and sufficient reason for their absence on the day in question the appellants will doubtless regularise their absence in which case it would follow that they have been properly admitted to the examination. and further action will be taken accordingly and the results duly published. If, on the other hand, they are not so satisfied they will have appropriate orders on the representations, and the petitioners will be regarded as not having been admitted to the examinations.

(3.) Subject to the above observations we dismiss the appeals. The petitioners, namely, the respondent in the appeals, do not press for costs and we order none. Appeals dismissed.