UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. PREM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, by Union of India, for quashing order dated 27.02.2004 (Annexure P-11) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short 'the Tribunal'), whereby the Original Application filed by the respondent No. 1 - Prem Singh has been allowed and the appointment of respondent No. 2 - Ram Niwas to the post of Extra Departmental Branch Postmaster (herein after called 'EDBPM'), Gurana has been quashed and a direction has been issued for appointment of respondent No. 1 to the said post. The Tribunal has further directed that the department shall consider the possibility of accommodating respondent No. 2 on any other alternative post.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the Superintendent of Post Offices, Hissar Division had invited all candidates, including respondents No. 1 and 2, whose names had been forwarded by Employment Exchange, to submit their applications with requisite documents on or before August 20, 1998 for appointment to the post of 'EDBPM'. Though respondent No. 1 was placed at Serial No. 1 in the Merit list on account of having secured 57.3% marks as against respondent No. 2 who was placed at No. 2 having secured 51.6% marks in Matric, however, the Sub Divisional Inspector (Postal) who was asked to scrutinize the applications submitted a report to the effect that the respondent No. 1 does not fulfill the qualification relating to income and ownership of property as envisaged in the instructions dated 06.12.1993. Consequently the appointment of respondent No. 2 was approved on 27.08.1998, by the Superintendent of Post Offices and the charge of post was handed over to him on 02.09.1998. The representation of respondent No. 1 against his non selection was decided vide order dated 12.06.2001 (Annexure A-1), the operative portion of which reads as under :-

(3.) Feeling aggrieved, respondent No. 1, filed an Original Application, under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, before the Tribunal, being OA. No 185-HR of 2002, inter alia, praying for quashing of order dated 12.6.2001 (Annexure A-1), as well as the appointment of respondent No 2, along with a prayer to appoint respondent No. 1 to the said post. The stand of the petitioner-Union of India before the Tribunal was that respondent No. 1, though higher in merit, yet he did not possess the essential and mandatory qualification of Income and ownership of property as he was stated to be working occasionally in the Village as Mason, whereas on the other hand respondent No. 2 was stated to be running a Karyana Shop in the Village. The said original application was allowed by the Tribunal, in the first instance, vide order dated 14.11.2002, by holding that since the respondent No. 1 was having higher marks than respondent No. 2, the appointment of respondent No. 2 was bad in law. The Tribunal quashed the appointment of respondent No. 2 and directed that if the respondent No. 1 fulfills all the other requisite eligibility criterion, he shall be given appointment in preference to the respondent No 2. It was also directed that since respondent No. 2 has served the department for about 4 years by that time, the Department shall consider the feasibility of accommodating him on any other alternative post.