BURADA KANAKA RATNAM Vs. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POSTS BHIMAVARAM DIVISION BHIMAVARAM WEST GODAVARI DIST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Buradd Kanaka Ratnam, the writ petitioner filed the present writ petition praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for records in O.A. No.1713/98 on the file of Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, hereinafter in short referred to as "Tribunal" for the purpose of convenience, and quash the said order and the Memo No.TRG-1/2- 1/151 at Mysore dated 19-11-1998 issued by the 4th respondent and to pass such other suitable orders.

(2.) The petitioner claims to be a widow and it is stated that her name was sponsored by Employment Exchange, Eluru in connection with recruitment of Postal Assistants in Bhimavaram Postal Division for the year 1997 and subsequent thereto on 24-9-1998 she was interviewed in the Office of the Superintendent of Posts, Bhimavaram Region, Bhimavaram and thereafter she was directed to undergo induction training for a period of two months at Postal Training Centre, Mysore for appointment as Postal Assistant by proceedings of Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Bhimavaram Division dated 30-9-1998. After completing necessary formalities, the petitioner reported for training at the Postal Training Centre, Mysore. While she was undergoing training, the 4th respondent discharged her from Session with effect from 19-11-1998 Forenoon by Memo No.TRG-1/2/1-151 dated 19-11-1998 as per the Telegraphic Information received from the 1st respondent on 18-11-1998 and further directed to report to the 1st respondent. It was further stated that in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the 1 st respondent directed the writ petitioner to credit the amount of Rs. 1,742/- which was paid to her towards stipend for the period from 5-10-1998 to 31-10-1998 in connection with the aforesaid Training. On 8-12-1998 once again the 1st respondent directed the writ petitioner to credit the amount and when the writ petitioner approached the 1st respondent personally, the 1st respondent stated that she had illicit contact with one K. Satyanarayana, R.T.C. Conductor, Eluru, West Godavari District and if the same is not made she would be arrested in a case to be filed against her and the writ petitioner also was orally informed that she was no longer in service in Postal Department. It was further pleaded that discharge was made without giving notice and the same is illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice. It is further stated that the Tribunal by the order dated 16-12-1999 dismissed the O.A. No. 1713/98 on the ground that the writ petitioner was re-married and hence she does not enjoy the status of the widow any longer. It was also specifically pleaded that the writ petitioner had not married the said K. Satyanarayana and even the said K. Satyanarayana had specifically stated . so in his reply to the charge of re-marriage and in fact he had removed her name from P.P. benefits and had placed the names of his two sons. Absolutely there is no evidence to show that the writ petitioner had remarried the said K. Satyanarayana and hence assailing the said order, the present writ of certiorari was filed by the writ petitioner.

(3.) The respondents filed a counter- affidavit in detail even before this Court taking the self-same stand which they had taken before the Tribunal. It was pleaded in Para-3 of the counter-affidavit that Smt. Burada Kanakaratnam, the writ petitioner herein, was sponsored by the Employment Exchange, Eluru for recruitment to the cadre of Postal Assistant for the year 1997 under O.B.C. category. The objective type test was conducted on 30-5-1998 and the Type test and Interview were conducted on 24-9-1998. On the date of interview, the writ petitioner submitted the death certificate of her husband and also gave a letter declaring that her husband expired in 1976 and she was not remarried. In the D.P.C. held on 24-9-1998 the writ petitioner was selected as Postal Assistant under OBC category by allowing the age relaxation of ten years under widow category as sponsored by the Employment Exchange, Eluru and she was directed to Postal Training Centre, Mysore along with other candidates for Induction training commenced on 5-10-1998. It was further pleaded in Para-4 of the counter-affidavit that the death certificate submitted by the writ petitioner was sent to the Superintendent of Post Offices, Rajahmundry on 16-10-1998 for verification as it was issued by the Gram Panchayat, 'G' Kothapalli, East Godavari District and the Superintendent of Post Offices, Rajahmundry was also requested to cause enquiries in the village about her widow status. The O.B.C. certificate submitted by the writ petitioner was sent to Superintendent of Post Offices, Eluru for verification and report. It was also requested to verify the widow status of the writ petitioner at the address given by her. It was further stated that the Superintendent of Post Offices, Rajahmundry in his Letter No.B3/3/Misc. dated 11-11-1998, which was received on 13-11-1998, returned the death certificate duly verified. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Rajahmundry further informed that the writ petitioner re-married one R.T.C. Conductor after 12 years from the date of death of her first husband and she is having one daughter by her first husband and a son through the second husband. The writ petitioner was recalled from the Postal Training Centre, Mysore as she had given a false declaration on 24-9-1998 that she had not re-married after the death of her husband and since she got selection as a result of age relaxation of 10 years given under widow category. The date of birth of the writ petitioner is 19-4-1960 and the upper age limit for O.B.C. candidate is 28 years for selection to the post of Postal Assistant. At the time of sponsoring by the Employment Exchange, Eluru her age was 37 years. The Director, Postal Training Centre, Mysore was requested to discharge the petitioner from training with instructions to attend the office of the 1st respondent. The Postal Training Centre, Mysore discharged the writ petitioner on 19-11-1998 Forenoon and she attended the office of the 1st respondent on 23-11-1998 accompanied by her father and gave a statement in the presence of her father Meesala Suryanarayana. In her statement, the writ petitioner stated that her husband B.Surya Prakasa Rao expired on 12-11-1976 at 'G' Kothapalli Village in East Godavari District and she has been living with Sri Kancherlapalli Satyanarayana, R.T.C. Conductor, Eluru for the last ten years and she had a son through Kancherlapalli Satyanarayana, R.T.C. Conductor and his name is Kancherlapalli Siva Prasad and he is studying 5th class in Bahuguna Memorial Police School, Eluru and she also stated that her name had been recorded in the service records of Kancherlapalli Satyanarayana as nominee. It was also further pleaded in Para-5 of the counteraffidavit that in the light of the aforesaid facts, the writ petitioner was directed to credit the stipend paid to her for the month of October, 1998 during the training period but she had not so far credited the stipend amount. Meanwhile another report was received from the Superintendent of Post Offices, Eluru by Lr.No.B/Misc. dated 30-12-1998 informing that enquiries made with the A.P.S.R.T.C. authorities, Eluru revealed that Kancherlapalli Satyanarayana, RTC Conductor No.69805 S/o. Hanumantha Rao is working as Conductor in Eluru Depot and he had submitted a revised nomination for P.P. benefits on 1-12-1995 nominating the writ petitioner as wife to the extent of 50% and his two sons Srinivas and Vijay Kumar to the extent of 25% each which was accepted by the R.T.C. authorities on 13-12-1995. The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Eluru in his Lr.No.E/255(Genl) 98-ELR dated 4-1-1999 informed that as per personal case and service register of Kancherlapalli Satyanarayana E. 69805, Conductor of Eluru Depot, Smt. Kanaka Ratnam, the writ petitioner, is his wife. It was further pleaded in Para-6 of the counter-affidavit that the writ petitioner filed O.A.No. 1713/98 on the file of Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad seeking the relief of reinstatement as Postal Assistant Induction Trainee or in any suitable post. The Tribunal issued interim order with directions to send the applicant for the training for the next course to Postal Training Centre, Mysore by order dated 21-1-1999 and based on the interim orders of the Tribunal, the writ petitioner was again deputed for training with effect from 10-5-1999 by Memo No.B5/PAs/Trg/99 dated 3-5-1999. It was further pleaded in Para-7 of the counter-affidavit that the petitioner failed to secure the required marks in all the tests held and also in the final test held on 23-/-1999 and she was one of the five candidates who failed to secure the passing marks in the final test held on 25-6-1999. Her training was extended by 15 days and then a test was conducted on 9-7-1999 and in respect of the said test also she failed to secure the required marks. The writ petitioner was given two more chances to pass the qualifying test but she had not been able to get qualifying marks and therefore she could not be certified fit for appointment. The marks secured by the writ petitioner as furnished in the counter affidavit are as hereunder : Date of Re-test <FRM>PRA8.htm</FRM> It was stated in Para-8 of the counter affidavit that in the meanwhile M.A.No.326/ 99 was filed by the Department in the Tribunal which was dismissed on 28-4-1999 and later the writ petitioner sent xerox copies of revised nominations of Kancharlapalli Satyanarayana, RTC Conductor, Eluru issued on 12-4-1999 by deleting the name of the petitioner. It was further pleaded in Para-9 of the counter affidavit that the Tribunal dismissed the O.A. on 16-12-1999 upholding the action of the 1st respondent and basing on the final orders of the Tribunal the name of the writ petitioner was deleted from the select list as the petitioner was not entitled for the age relaxation available to widow candidates since, the writ petitioner got re-married after the death of her husband and she is no longer in widow status. It was further pleaded in Para-10 of the counter-affidavit that the writ petitioner was selected to the cadre of Postal Assistant Bunder O.B.C. category by allowing age relaxation of ten years under widow category. The enquiries made by the Department revealed that the writ petitioner got re-married after the death of her husband and was no longer in widow status. As the petitioner claimed the benefit by giving false declaration, the Postal Training Centre, Mysore was asked to discharge the petitioner from the Training Center as the widow status of the applicant was found bogus. In reply to Para-4 pf the affidavit of the writ petitioner, at Para-11 of the counter- affidavit of the respondents it was pleaded that the petitioner was directed to credit back the stipend paid to her during the training period as she was discharged from the Postal Training Centre. It was specifically pleaded that there is no truth in the allegation that the 1st respondent threatened the writ petitioner etc. In reply to Para-5 of the affidavit of the writ petitioner, in Para-12 of the counter-affidavit it was pleaded that since the writ petitioner is not appointed as Postal Assistant on regular basis, there is no case for issuing a notice. As the petitioner had been living with an A.P.S.R.T.C. employee of the State Government since ten years and also had a son through him, the widow status of the writ petitioner was found to be questionable. It was further stated that the writ petitioner got selection as Postal Assistant by getting age relaxation under widow status and in the statement given by the writ petitioner on 23-11-1998 she stated that she has been living with K.Satyanarayana, R.T.C. Conductor, Eluru as nominee. The R.T.C. authorities also accepted the nomination given by Kancherlapalli Satyanarayana, R.T.C. Conductor. The statement given by the petitioner on 23-11-1998 and the revised nomination given by K.Satyanarayana, R.T.C. Conductor showing the name of the writ petitioner had proved that her widow status is not correct. The other allegations also had been denied in the counter-affidavit.