RENU KUMARI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REQUISITION was sent to the Employment Exchange, Chapra, vide letter 8.11.1995 for sending names of suitable candidates for appointment on the post of Extra Department Branch Post Master (EDBPM). The cut -off date for filing application and documents was 7.12.1995. The names of the petitioner, respondent no. 6 and others were sent by the Employment Exchange. Upon verification of the certificates/other materials the petitioner was selected for appointment and she was appointed vide appointment letter dated 11.6.96, Annexure -7. The petitioner joined the post and was working. Respondent No.6 being aggrieved by the appointment of the petitioner filed O.A. No. 197 of 1997 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal heard the parties and set aside the appointment of the petitioner on the ground that the subsequent mark -sheet furnished by respondent no.6 in the case showed that he got more marks than the petitioner in Madhyama examination, which is equivalent to matriculation and directed to appoint respondent no. 6 vide order dated 20th of July 2004. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order has filed the writ petition.

(2.) NOTICE was issued to respondent no. 6 and he appeared through counsel, who filed counter affidavit in which he supported the order impugned and denied the claim of the writ petitioner for her appointment. The Union of India has also filed counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit the Union of India has admitted that the appointment of the petitioner was made in accordance with law as he had obtained more marks than respondent no. 6.

(3.) ON consideration of the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, this much is obvious that respondent no. 6 filed the mark -sheet, Annexure -3, as required within time wherefrom it appears that he obtained 631. marks out of 900, whereas the writ petitioner obtained 667 marks out of 900. The respondent -authorities taking into consideration the aforesaid fact appointed the petitioner as obviously she had obtained more marks than respondent no. 6. The Tribunal, however, failed to consider the aforesaid aspect of the matter and took into consideration the mark -sheet submitted by respondent no. 6 after cut -off date i.e. 7.12.1995. According to the writ petitioner, Annexure -8 cannot be taken into consideration as it was filed much after the cut -off date. Moreover, it is evident from Annexure -8 that in compulsory subjects the marks have been enhanced and in additional subject marks have been decreased. Furthermore, statement has been made in the writ petition that respondent no. 6 passed the matriculation examination in 1979 in Second Division and his roll code was 5605 and roll number was 0317 and B.A. examination in 1983. The subsequent mark -sheet filed by respondent no. 6 is of Madhyama examination which could not have been taken into consideration as it was filed much after the cut -off date. It has further been pointed out that his date of birth was also changed i.e. initially he had mentioned his date of birth as 28.6.1962 and subsequently 26.3.1962. In such a situation the mark -sheet filed subsequently becomes suspicious. But the Tribunal did not consider the aforesaid aspect of the matter. It is well established rule of law that normally the document filed within time should be considered. However, in the instant case, the mark -sheet filed subsequently by respondent no. 6 was taken into consideration by the Tribunal, which appears to be doubtful in view of the discussions made above. In the circumstance, the order of the Tribunal suffers from illegality.