KALI CHARAN MOHANTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No.212 of 2000 disposed of on 30.8.2001. Opp.party No.3 before this Court was the applicant before the Tribunal. The present petitioner was respondent No.3 before the Tribunal.

(2.) IN response to notification dated 22.8.1995 for appointment to the post of Extra Departmental Branch Post Master (EDBPM), Bartania Branch Office, the petitioner, opposite party No.3 and four others submitted their applications. The present petitioner was selected in the selection process and was given appointment. Challenging his selection and appointment to the post of EDBPM, the present opposite party No.3 filed O.A. before the Tribunal. The ground taken before the Tribunal was that the applicant had secured more marks than the present petitioner in H.S.C. Examination and had fulfilled the rest of the requirement for such appointment and, therefore the petitioner before this Court could not have been selected and appointed against the post. Counter affidavit was filed by the department wherein it was admitted that the applicant before the Tribunal (opposite party No.3 in this writ application) had secured better percentage of marks than the petitioner but the sale deed submitted by the applicant indicated that it was a joint family property and only two of the share holders had executed the sale deed without consent of others and, therefore, such sale deed did not confer any title on the applicant. He also having mentioned in the application that he had no adequate income from other sources, his candidature was rejected. Rejoinder filed by the applicant before the Tribunal stating therein that 0.54 decimals of land purchased by him is not in dispute and he being a co -sharer, had purchased the same from his brothers and a patta has been granted in his favour. The Tribunal in the impugned judgment found that the applicant before it had secured better percentage of marks than the petitioner and interpreting adequate means of livelihood held that a person to be selected as EDBPM should be in a position to offer space to serve for the agency as well as public call office. The case of the department not being that, the applicant was not in a position to offer the same, the case of the applicant was accepted by the Tribunal and appointment of the petitioner was set aside.

(3.) ON examination of the records placed before this Court, we find that opposite party No.3 had secured 41.41% marks in H.S.C. Examination whereas the present petitioner had secured 41.25%. Therefore, undisputedly opposite party No.3 had secured better marks than the petitioner. It is also found that the opposite party No.3 submitted an income certificate issued by the competent authority. The checksheet discloses that the income of opposite party No.3 was Rs.10,000/ - per annum from agricultural source. This certificate has not been challenged either by the department or even by the petitioner before the Tribunal. Apart from above, documents were filed along with the application that opposite party No.3 was the owner of some landed properties by virtue of a sale deed executed in his favour. When the specific case of opposite party No.3 before the department was that he had purchased the land from his brothers, the department could not have ignored the document on the ground that it does not confer any title on opposite party No.3, the same having been executed by two of the co -sharers and consent having not been taken from other co -sharers.