M SELVAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Balan Haridas for the petitioner, Mrs. Narmada Sampath, Addl. Central Government Standing Counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2 and Mrs. Jothivani for Respondent No. 3.

(2.) THE question in these writ petitions relate to selection of Extra Departmental Branch Postmaster. A notification was issued for such post on 25. 8. 1995. The present petitioner as well as the present Respondent No. 3 were candidates in addition to several other candidates. There is no dispute that the present Respondent No. 3 belongs to Scheduled Caste community. Initially the present petitioner was selected and was allowed to join. At that stage, the present Respondent No. 3 filed O. A. No. 95 of 1996 challenging her non-selection and the selection of the present petitioner. The Tribunal, at that stage, came to the conclusion that the present Respondent No. 3 had been illegally excluded on the basis of the pressure put by the local villagers and not according to the Rules and directed the Department to have a fresh selection by order dated 4. 5. 1998. Thereafter, the Department communicated to the present petitioner by office letter dated 25. 6. 1998 that a fresh selection would be held on 25. 7. 1998. At that time the present petitioner did not challenge such communication or the order of the Tribunal. Subsequently, in the fresh selection held, the petitioner as well as Respondent No. 3 had participated. The Department by order dated 6. 8. 1998 appointed the present Respondent No. 3 as Extra Departmental Branch Postmaster. The above order was challenged by the petitioner by filing O. A. No. 766 of 1998. The Department in the counter affidavit filed before the Tribunal clarified that the present Respondent No. 3 had been selected taking into account the fact that she belongs to Scheduled Caste category and the candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste have been grossly underrepresented and therefore such Respondent No. 3 was preferred. The Department had also relied upon Instruction No. 6 of the Method of Recruitment given in Swamy's ED Rules (1995 Edition ). O. A. No. 766 of 1998 having been dismissed by order dated 9. 12. 1999, the present petitioner filed Review Application No. 30 of 2000, which has been rejected by the Tribunal vide order dated 28. 8. 2000. Thereafter the petitioner has filed W. P. No. 18461 of 2000 against the first order of the Tribunal in O. A. No. 95 of 1996 dated 4. 5. 1998, filed by Respondent No. 3, and W. P. No. 18462 of 2000 against the orders of the Tribunal in O. A. No. 766 of 1996 dated 9. 12. 1999 and R. A. No. 30 of 2000 dated 28. 8. 2000.

(3.) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is to the effect that as per the Instruction No. 2 of the Method of Recruitment, selection has to take place on the basis of the marks obtained in the qualifying examination, namely, Matriculation or equivalent examinations. Since the present petitioner has secured more marks compared to Respondent No. 3, he has to be selected. He has further contended that since the post is not reserved for SC Category, the petitioner should have been preferred for the post. Learned counsels appearing for the respondents have supported the conclusion of the Tribunal.