UNION OF INDIA Vs. P PATTURANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras bench, dated 5. 2. 2003, made in O. A. No. 922 of 2002, the Director General of posts, the Director of Postal Services and the Senior Superintendent of Post offices have filed the above writ petition.

(2.) THE first respondent herein filed Original Application No. 922 of 2002 before the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking to quash the orders passed by the first respondent therein dated 6. 12. 1993 and 18. 9. 1995, the order of the second respon ein dated 14. 6. 2002 as well as the order of the third respondent therein dated 3. 9. 2002, and consequently prayed for a direction to appoint her as GDS Branch Post Master at Sebathiapuram Post office. It is seen that the post of Branch Post Master of Sebathiapuram fell vacant from 7. 6. 2001 due to the retirement of the incumbent. The post was earmarked for OBC and a local notification was issued on 8. 3. 2001 c alling for applications, fixing the last date as 9. 4. 2001. Subsequently, the Employment exchange was also addressed to sponsor eligible candidates for the said post. Totally 18 Applications were received by the third petitioner/the Senior superintendent of Post Offices, Tuticorin Division, and all the candidates were directed to appear on 24. 5. 2001 for certificate verification. The first respondent herein was one among the candidates sponsored by the Employment exchange. Out of the 14 candidates attended for certificate verification, the first respondent alone was selected for the post of Branch Post Officer on 24. 5. 2001, as she was having property and income in her own name besides having secured highest marks among all the candidates.

(3.) WHEN the appointment of the first respondent was scrutinised by the second petitioner herein/the Director of Postal Services, Office of the post Master General, Southern Region, Madurai, it was noticed that the first respondent had not produced proper income certificate. Hence it was ordered to verify as to whether the property shown by her is an income generating property. On verification, it was found that the property is a dry land and is not yielding any income. In such circumstances, a show cause notice was issued to the first respondent. She subsequently produced another income certificate stating that there is a building in the land and the same is being let out to run a shop for a monthly rent of Rs. 500/ -. Again it was ordered to be verified about the genuineness of the building constructed in the land and it was noticed that there was only a thatched temporary shed. As per the instructions of the Government of India, the income certificate in proof of deriving income from the property should be produced before the last date for receipt of application and in any case before the date of certificate verification. After finding that the property is not yielding any income, the selection of the first respondent herein was set aside by the second petitioner by memo dated 14. 6. 2002 and the first respondent was relieved from the post on 17. 6. 200 2. Thereafter, fresh applications were called for by the department on 3. 9. 2002.