HARI RAM YADAV Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Prabhat Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Asheesh Agnihotri, learned Counsel for the opposite party No.3 and Mr. Abdul Moin, learned Counsel appearing for the opposite parties.

(2.) Draped in brevity, the facts of the case are that the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Faizabad Division, Faizabad (opposite party no.3) vide notification dated 22.6.2000 invited applications for the post of Extra Departmental Branch Post Master (EDBPM) at Maharajganj (Surapur), district Ambedkar Nagar. Twenty Three persons, including the petitioner and private respondent, had applied for the aforesaid post. According to the petitioner, the opposite party No.4 stood at the top of the list, whereas the petitioner stood at Sl. No.2 on the basis of percentage of high school examination. However, the opposite party no.4 was not having the requisite conditions/requirements and as such the authorities after considering the candidature of all the candidates, recommended the name of the petitioner for appointment. Later on, after due procedure and selection process, the petitioner was appointed vide order dated 10.12.2000. As the private respondent-opposite party No.4 was not given appointment, he filed Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal on the ground that he secured higher marks in the High School in comparison to petitioner. However, the opposite party No.4 had not challenged the requirement of notification; rather, accepted the same.

(3.) The Tribunal by the impugned judgment allowed the Original Application of the private respondent and quashed the appointment order of the petitioner. Further, the Tribunal directed the official respondents to issue offer of appointment to the person who stands first in the order of merit and in case, such a person provides suitable accommodation to serve as the agency premises for postal operations, the appointment letter would be issued in favour of such persons. In case, however, the person who stands first in the order of merit fails to offer space within the prescribed time, the person who stands second in the order of merit would be sent a similar offer of appointment.