SITARAM BHOI Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed wherein the order dated 5.4.2004 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in Original Application No.1147 of 2002 is under challenge whereby and where under the Tribunal while dismissing the original application has refused to grant relief, so far as it relates to quashing of appointment of the respondent no.3 in the post of Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Post Master (GDSBPM) of Tamdei Branch Post Office and refused to direct the authorities to appoint the applicant in the post of GDSBPM. 2. The brief fact of the case is that the applicant was previously appointed as EDBPM on 21.09.1987 at Tamdei Branch Post Office. One Sri Narasingh Kumar Seth was appointed as EDBPM on compassionate ground, the applicant was relived with effect from 25.5.1990. Sri Seth was removed from service on 17.3.1998 on allegation of misappropriation of Government funds.

(2.) The applicant made representation on 7.4.1998 requesting the Superintendent of Post Offices, Sambalpur Division to appoint him as EDBPM of the said post office. According to the petitioner, the applications made by him to that effect were still pending. Hence, he filed O.A. No.284 of 1998 before the Tribunal, which was disposed of with direction to the authorities to consider the case of the applicant against the said post. The authorities have issued notification inviting applications for the post of GDSBPM/EDBPM of Tamdei Branch Office to fill up the said post in S.T. category and in case the minimum required number of three eligible candidates belonging to S.T. category were not available, the said vacancy would be offered to the O.B.C., then S.C. failing which O.C. The post was reserved for S.T. community. The respondent no.3, who belongs to S.T. community, was selected and appointed on 7.6.2002.

(3.) It is the case of the applicant is that the respondent no.3 before the Tribunal having secured 379 marks out of 800 in H.S.C. ought not to have been considered more meritorious than him, particularly when he belongs to O.B.C. candidate. Initially, the said post was not reserved, but the respondent no.2, before the Tribunal, illegally and arbitrarily reserved the said post for S.T. category, i.e., 100% reservation, which is contrary to law. The selection of the respondent no.3, before the Tribunal, according to the applicant, is also contrary to the direction of the Tribunal in O.A. No.421 of 2001. Hence, he prayed to allow the prayer made by him in the original application. Per contra, the Department, while contesting the case, by filing a detailed counter, has submitted that the applicant was provisionally selected as EDBPM, Tamdei on 17.9.1987 and joined the duty on 24.9.1987 on the condition that till regular appointment (compassionate appointment) on the understanding that the appointing authority reserves the right to terminate the appointment of the applicant without notice and without assigning any reason. Thereafter, Sri N.K. Seth was appointed as EDBPM on compassionate ground on 25.5.1990 and the applicant as result thereof was relieved from the post. Sri Seth was put off duty with effect from 16.3.1998 and a proceeding under Rule 8 of G.D.S. (Conduct and Service) Rules was initiated, ultimately he was removed from service and as such, to fill up the said post, the Employment Exchange was requested to sponsor the names of at-least three eligible candidates. The Employment Exchange sent a list of seven candidates, out of which five candidates applied as the minimum number of candidates, i.e., 3 candidates did not apply with the required documents, public notification was issued inviting applications on 27.1.1999. The applicant had filed O.A. No.284 of 1998 with prayer to consider him along with other candidates. As directed by the Tribunal, as the number of candidates fulfilling the required conditions was less than three, the selection could not be made. The said O.A. was dismissed for default on 15.3.2002. The said post was de-marked for S.T. community and public notification inviting applications from eligible candidates was issued vide memo dated 13.2.2002. Simultaneously, a request was made to the Employment Exchange to sponsor the names of the eligible candidates, in pursuance thereof, a list of candidates belonging to S.C./S.T. community was received. Out of eight candidates, two had already applied for the post in pursuance of the public notification and ultimately respondent no.3 belonging to S.T. community candidate was selected. The applicant belongs to O.B.C. community and has secured 47.37% of marks whereas respondent no.3, the selected candidate, secured only 35.14% of marks, hence his case has rightly been considered. The Tribunal after taking note of revival submission of the parties and considering the nature of vacancy, which was earmarked for the S.T. community, to which the applicant, being an O.B.C. category candidate, does not have any right, the Tribunal rejected the claim of the applicant. The said order is before this Court under scrutiny.