UNION OF INDIA Vs. AKSHAYA KUMAR NAYAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application, the Union of India and its officials have challenged the order dated 08.05.2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, in Original Application No.252 of 1998. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has allowed the aforesaid O.A. filed by opposite party No.1 and quashed the order of termination of his services.

(2.) The case of the applicant-opposite party No.1 is that he was duly selected for a put off duty vacancy being sponsored by the Employment Exchange. Accordingly, appointment order was issued to him on 10.01.1997. However, his services were terminated vide order dated 02.04.1998. He approached the Tribunal with the grievance that it was so done without affording any opportunity to him and thus without following the principle of natural justice. The respondent-petitioners, in their counter filed before the Tribunal stated that after candidates were sponsored by the Employment Exchange, they were asked to file applications in proper form along with necessary documents. Only nine candidates including the applicant-opposite party No.1 filed their applications, out of whom seven were found eligible. Among the said seven candidates, though the applicant did not secure the highest percentage of marks, the appointing authority, i.e., the Superintendent of Post Offices, Mayurbhanj Division, decided to give preference to him because he had sufficient income and had landed property in his own name. The said selection was, however, reviewed by the Chief Postmaster General, who found that the applicant had got less marks than the other candidates. Therefore, he passed the order of cancellation of the appointment of the applicant-opposite party No.1. Accordingly, the Superintendent of Post Offices issued the order of termination of services under Rule 6(b) of the EDA (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties, by the impugned order dated 08.05.2000, allowed the O.A. by quashing the order of cancellation/ termination of appointment/services of the applicant-opposite party No.1.

(3.) Mr. J. K. Mishra, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India, contended that the appointment of the applicant-opposite part No.1 was purely provisional in nature and the order of termination was issued following Rule 6(b) of the EDA (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964. He further contended that the selection in which the applicant-opposite party No.1 was selected was sent to the Chief Postmaster General for review of the appointment as per the prevalent departmental rules circulated vide D.G. (Posts), New Delhi Letter No.19-23/97 ED and TRG dated 13.11.1997. On review, it was found that more meritorious candidates, who had secured more marks than the applicant, had been ignored. Therefore, the selection of the applicant was cancelled. He also submitted that if a wrong and injustice has been detected and cured by the appropriate authority, no fault should have been found with the same and it should have been upheld. Instead of doing that, the Tribunal has quashed the same.