ASHOK KUMAR PRADHAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who was working as EDBPM/ GDSBPM, Sanatribada Branch Office in the district of Angul and Respondent No. 5 in O.A. No. 520 of 2000 has approached this Court challenging the order/judgment dated 10.2.2004 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack, in the said case. One Utsab Chandra Pradhan, the applicant therein had approached the Tribunal for a direction to quash the selection and appointment of respondent No. 5 (the present petitioner) to the post of E.D.B.P.M. and for a direction to the Respondents to conduct selection test afresh by giving an opportunity to all the eligible candidates including the applicant.

(2.) EVEN though nobody appeared for the applicant when the matter was taken up for hearing by the Tribunal, only on hearing the submissions made by Mr. B. Das, learned Additional Standing Counsel, learned Tribunal inter alia held that the selection of Respondent No. 5 to the post of E.D.B.P.M. was made in contravention of the vacancy notification for filling up the post and as such the said selection and appointment of respondent No. 5 therein as E.D.B.P.M. was set aside/quashed and further the official respondents were directed to issue a fresh notification inviting application wherein the case of the applicant and respondent No. 5 was to be considered, provided they are found eligible in all respect. The respondent No. 5 in the Original Application has filed the present application challenging the said findings/order of the learned Tribunal.

(3.) THE opposite parties 1 to 3 have filed their reply almost admitting the above position as has been stated by the petitioner in his application. They have filed a copy of notification dated 31.12.1999 (Annexure R/1) as well as check sheet/list dated 14.2.2000 (Annexure R/2). They have also stated that however three eligible candidates belonging to S.C., S.T., O.B.C., did not offer their candidature and as such the vacancy has been treated as unreserved and offered to the candidates belonging to other communities. After preparation of check list/sheet on the basis of the applications filed along with supporting document of the candidates, it is found that none of the S.T./S.C. candidates fulfilled all the eligibility criteria to be selected and appointed for the post. Binod Kumar Pradhan and Ashok Kumar Pradhan (present petitioner) at Sl. Nos. 8 and 11 of the checklist were found eligible. One Pravakar Pradhan, even though found eligible to be considered was not selected due to submission of some manipulated documents along with his application. The opposite party No. 4 herein Utsab Pradhan submitted the income certificate in the name of his father and therefore he was kept out of the zone of consideration. As such the application of Pravakar Pradhan, Binod Kumar Pradhan and Ashok Kumar Prahdan were in order and they remained within the zone of consideration. Binod Kumar Pradhan secured less marks than the petitioner and some of the documents filed by Pravakar Pradhan found to be manipulated and hence the petitioner was duly selected and appointed to the post. As such there is no irregularity and illegality in selecting and appointing Ashok Kumar Pradhan (present petitioner) as EDBPM in Sanatribida Branch Post Office.