JASBIR KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner and respondent No. 4 were contenders for the post of Extra Departmental Delivery Agent. The Department selected respondent No. 4. The petitioner challenged the selection before the Central Administrative Tribunal. After consideration of the matter, the Tribunal has rejected the petitioner's claim vide its order dated Jan. 31, 2000. Aggrieved by the order, dated, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition. He prays that the order be quashed.

(2.) We have heard Mr. V.S. Rana, learned counsel for the petitioner. He contends that the petitioner had the experience of working on the post in question. If weightage for experience was given, the petitioner would have been selected. He further contends that according to the decision of the Tribunal in an earlier case, the qualification of Matriculation was wholly illegal and could not have been prescribed for appointment to the post of Extra Departmental Delivery Agent. Thus, the Tribunal has erred in giving preference to the fourth respondent on the basis of his marks in the Matriculation Examination.

(3.) It is true that the petitioner had been appointed on the post of Extra Departmental Delivery Agent in Sept. 1997. This appointment was made on a purely ad hoc basis. The petitioner had to compete for regular selection. When he was not selected, the petitioner was relieved from the post on April 12, 1999. The Tribunal has observed that the petitioner was not entitled to be given any weightage for the experience, as it had not been acquired after having been validly appointed to the post. In case of direct recruitment to a post, the experience acquired by way of ad hoc appointment has been excluded from consideration. In support of this view, the Tribunal has placed reliance on the decision of Honourable the Supreme Court in Kanwar Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others, 1997(2) SLR 430 : 1997(2) SCT 292 (SC) . This view of the Tribunal has not been shown to be wrong.