ANIL KUMAR MEHTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 20th July, 2004 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (hereinafter referred to as &aposthe CAT&apos) in O.A. No. 240 of 2000. The grievance of the petitioner is that the CAT has illegally set aside his appointment from the post of Extra Departmental Branch Post Master (for short &aposEDBPM&apos) of Kedali Patti in the Saharsa Postal Division and respondent no. 5 has been ordered to be appointed to the same said post.

(3.) THE official respondents filed the written statement and admitted the position that Neelam Devi was first in the merit list amongst all the candidates but since she failed to submit documents relating to the landed property in her exclusive name, mutation order and up -to -date rent receipts, her claim had to be ignored and the present petitioner came to be appointed since he fulfilled all the criteria. The present petitioner also filed his written statement and reiterated the position that Neelam Devi had not submitted the necessary papers regarding the property including mutation order and rent receipts, which was mandatory condition as laid down in Note -1 below Rule 284&apos of P&TManual, Volume -IV. The petitioner also raised doubts over the marks -sheet submitted by her.