SACHALA DEI Vs. GANESH CHANDRA PRADHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this writ application challenge the judgment and order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 439 of 2000 quashing the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Extra Departmental Branch Post Master, Narayanipara Branch Office.

(2.) THE opposite party No. 1 was the applicant before the Tribunal. He had filed the original application before the Tribunal to quash the appointment of petitioner to the post of Extra Departmental Branch Post Master, Narayanipara Branch Office and for a further direction to appoint him in that post. As it appears from the record, six candidates including the present petitioner and the opposite party No. 1 applied for the said post. Out of the six candidates, three were not considered as their applications were not complete in all respects. Out of the rest three applicants, the opposite party No. 1 was found to have secured 50.40% of marks in Matriculation whereas the present petitioner had secured 44.71 % and the third candidate had secured 33.28%. So far as the income from agricultural source is concerned, it appears that the petitioner had income of Rs. 8000/ - from agricultural source and Rs. 12,000/ - from other source while the opposite party No. 1 had income of Rs. 800/ -from agriculture and Rs. 7,200/ - from other source. Taking this aspect into consideration, the department had given appointment to the present petitioner to the post of Extra Departmental Branch Post Master. Before the Tribunal, the opposite party No. 1 challenged the appointment of the petitioner on the ground that he was more meritorious than that of the present petitioner and the same could not have been ignored while selecting the candidate for appointment. Apart from the above, it was contended that due weightage should have been given to a more meritorious candidate even though he had less income from agricultural source. The Tribunal considering all these aspects of the matter found that even though the opposite party No. 1 had less income from agricultural source, he was much more meritorious than that of the petitioner and accordingly quashed the appointment of the petitioner and directed the department to appoint the opposite party No. 1 in the said post. The learned counsel Shri Dora appearing for the petitioner before this Court drew the attention of the Court to the eligibility criteria provided for appointment to such a post. It appears that a candidate seeking appointment to the said post must have passed the Matriculation or equivalent examination, must be prepared to provide suitable rent free accommodation for the post office in the post village, must have adequate agricultural landed property or immovable assets owned exclusively in his own name, should be permanent resident of the post village, should have independent source of income derived from agricultural property or immovable assets having adequate means of livelihood. Referring to the aforesaid eligibility criteria, Shri Dora submitted that merely because the opposite party No. 1 had secured more marks than that of the petitioner in the Matriculation Examination, no additional weightage should be given to him. On the other hand, the opposite party No. 1 was neither a resident of the post village nor had adequate income from agricultural source. In comparison to opposite party No. 1, the petitioner stands on a much better footing in this regard as she was not only a resident of the said post village but also has adequate income from the agricultural source. The Tribunal judgment was basically challenged on the ground that under the rules no additional weightage should be given to a candidate who has secured more marks in Matriculation examination.

(3.) ON consideration of the averments made in the writ application and the counter affidavits filed by the respective parties as well as argument advanced for the parties, this Court is called upon to decide as to whether the finding of the Tribunal that the opposite party No. 1 being more meritorious should be appointed against the post is justified or not.