JAIKISHORE MAHTO Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was an applicant for the post of Extra Department Sub -Post -Master in village Keota in the district of Samastipur. The post fell vacant due to the death of Ramautar Chaudhary who was holding this post for quite sometime. It is said that Ramautar Choudhary died on 25.1.1980. On his death a petition was filed by Smt. Deosagar Devi, widow of late Ramautar Choudhary stating that respondent no. 3, Nandkishore Choudhary, may b: appointed to succeed late Ramautar Chaudhary because he was the brother's son and was being treated like the son by him and used to look after him, and after his death he was looking after the applicant and managing her properties left by Ramautar Choudhary. The post was advertised on 1.2.80 with admirable speed by the postal department. In response to the advertisement the petitioner and respondent no. 3 applied. Since respondent no. 3 was appointed the petitioner being disappointed came to this Court. An advertisement (Annexure -1) set out certain qualifications which a prospective appointee was required to possess. The conditions advertised for the post, in question, were that the applicant must be a resident of the village, must possess a house on a road in which the office can be located, must have knowledge of Hindi and English and must possess means of livelihood possessing good moral character. He was required to furnish an income certificate by the revenue authority. Interestingly enough it did not contain the requirement that preference will be given to schedule caste, schedule tribe, backward etc. and further that preference will be given to the dependent of a deceased postmaster. Before the appointment was made enquiry was instituted on the respective merit of the parties by the Inspector of Post offices. The Department has annexed the report relating to the petitioner which is Annexure -E to the counter affidavit filed by the Union of India. The contents of this will be required to be considered in deciding the merit of this complication. The petitioner and the Union of India have brought several circular on the record which have a bearing on the issue involved and the points relied by the petitioner.

(2.) Annexure -3 is a circular relied upon by the petitioner which states that as far as possible preference should be given to (1) Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe, (2) Ex -Army Personnel, (3) backward and weaker Sec. of the society, (4) educated unemployed. This circular was the circular prevalent at the time when the advertisement was issued. Significantly the preferences mentioned in the circular were missing from the advertisement particularly the first requirement as stated above. This was followed by another circular (Annexure -3 filed by respondent no. 3. This circular in some measure modifies the circular as contained in Annexure -3 and has done away with the one criterion i.e. backward class and economically backward. A third circular Annexure -A has been produced by the Union of India, though connected with the other circular, is not relevant in this application. This circular states that while making appointments the concerned authority should keep it in mind that the appointment of reserved classes should not exceed the quota fixed for the purpose i.e. 33 for the total employment.

(3.) On these materials learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the appointment of respondent no. 3 primarily on the ground that the petitioner being a scheduled caste should have been given preference. He further submitted that respondent no. 3 aid not fulfil the interim (sic) laid down for appointment of dependents of deceased postmaster because on his own waying and contrary to the affidavit of the Union of India, he was not a adopted son within the meaning of Hindu Law, and the application filed by the respondent, referred to above, did not state that he is a dependent. In fact according to that petition he was treated by Ramautar Choudhary like a son and was treated so for all practical purposes which does not make him a dependent.