CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL Vs. REGISTRAR CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the arguments of Mr. S. Udhayakumar, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel representing the petitioners and have perused the records.

(2.) THE Chief Post Master General, Tamil Nadu Circle and two other officers of the same Department are the petitioners. Aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrate Tribunal [for short, 'CAT'] dated 03.11.2000 allowing the original application in O.A.No.501 of 1999 filed by the second respondent, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) HOWEVER , on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. S. Udhayakumar, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel contended that the EDBPM post in Pudupathur Branch Office fell vacant in January 1998 and the post was earmarked for Scheduled Caster category and even though 22 candidates had applied among which 11 candidates were found belonging to Scheduled Caste Community, only 9 candidates had attended the interview and as nobody was found suitable, a further local notification was issued on 07.4.1998 fixing the last date for receipt of application as 22.4.1998. In the second notification, five applications were received and the interview was fixed on 20.5.1998. On that day, some of the candidates left the office before their appearance and, therefore, the interview fixed on 20.5.1998 was postponed to 29.5.1998. Though the second respondent had secured 343 out of 500 marks, she produced the Income Certificate dated 30.4.1998 only after the last date fixed for the date of receipt of application and hence, accepting her Income Certificate after the due date was illegal and show cause notice was given and after getting her explanation, the termination of the service of the second respondent took place. Subsequent to the termination order dated 12.4.1999, local Employment Exchange was addressed and in response to the same, seven applications were received and the Employment Exchange sponsored 21 candidates. While this process was going on, the second respondent approached the Tribunal and the process was stalled. The receipt of any certificates after due date cannot be permitted especially in the light of the instructions issued by the Director General of Posts dated 18.9.1995 and once such a concession is given in favour of any individual, then the entire selection process may get vitiated because it may bound to give chain reaction from the other candidates and the Tribunal had overlooked the fact.