RAMESH KUMAR MISHRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has by this writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenged the order in Annexure 6 whereby his appointment as Departmental Delivery Agent-cum-Extra Depart- mental Mail Carrier (hereinafter referred to as KDDA-cum-MDDC) has been cancelled. The case was placed for hearing before a Division Bench constituted by Mr. Justice B. P. Jha and Mr. Justice C. S, S. Sinha. Mr. Justice Jha held that the application should be allowed and the order in Annexure 1 on the basis of which the order in Annexure 6 was passed should be quashed while Mr. Justice Sinha was of the view that the application ought to be dismissed The vase has, therefore, been referred to me.

(2.) Applications were invited for filling up posts by advertisement (Aunexure 2, dated 17-1-1978). Half a dozen candidates applied and they were interviewed by the Inspector of post offices, respondent No. 2, who is ued the appointment letter (Annexure 3) in favour of the petitioner. One of the unsuccessful candidates approached the respondent No. 3 the Superintendent of post offices, against the petitioner's appointment and the Superintendent directed the appointment to be kept in abeyance pending consideration of the matter by him. The autho- rities of the respondent No. 2 to make appointment was under challenge and the respondet No. 3 by his letter (Annexure 4), dated 9-2-1978 held that the res- pondent No. 2 was competent in this regard. The Superintendent, however, asked for a clarification as to why a separate interview letters had not been issued to the candidates indicating the place of interview. On 11-1-1978, the petitioner joined his post with the permission of the respondent No. 2. The objection to the petitioner's appointment was further pressed by a Member of the Parliament by his letter (Annexure A) addressed to the Past Master General, Bihar. The local Mukhia also took exception to the appointment by his telegram (Annexure B). The Post Master General, respondent No. 4, thereafter wrote to the respondent No. 3 vide Annexure D that the appointment had been decided to be cancelled on the ground of certain irregularities and the Inspector should be directed to make fresh appointment with the prior approval of the Superin- tendent. Accordingly, the Superintendent directed the Inspector by his letter, (Annexure 1), to pass a cancellation order and to take steps for fresh appointment with his prior approval and the Inspector issued the impugned letter, Annexure 6. The petitioner then approached the post Master General by a representation which was rejected by the order in Annexure 7 directing the petitioner to file a fresh application for appointment.

(3.) One of the points taken by the petitioner in support of his application is that the impugned orders were passed as a result of the undue influence of the Member of the Parliament who moved in the matter for extraneous reasons at the instance of one Kameshwar Rai, an unsuccessful candidate. In the letter, Annexure D, an observation was made by the fourth respondent in favour of Kameshwar Rai. But in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4, it was stated that the Memb r of the Parliament had in his letter men- tioned another unsuccessful candidate and not Kameshwar Rai. Since neither the Member of the Parliament nor Kameshwar Rai has been impleaded in the case, I do not consider it expedient to go into the question as to whether the act of the Member of the Parliament in writing the letter was justified or not and whether he took that step at the instance of Kameshwar Rai. I will assume in favour of the respondents that the impugned decision has not been taken mala fide or for any extraneous reason or under undue influence of any person. The question, however, remains as to whether the impugned order are vitiated on the other grounds urged on behalf of the petitioner.