CHANDRA PRAKASH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is working as Extra Departmental Branch Post Master (for short "edbpm"), Dhanok with the respondents since 22. 11. 94 on provisional basis. On the request made by the respondent No. 2 to the employment exchange office, Bhilwara to sponsor three names for filling up the post of EDBPM. THE employment exchange send three names including the name of the petitioner. In turn, the respondent No. 2 called the petitioner and asked him to produce necessary certificates for considering his name for appointment on the post of EDBPM. Accordingly, he produced the relevant certificates like, Sr. School Exam Certificate, Character certificate, Bonafide certificate, Certificate with regard to holding of Property and Income certificate along with his application on 24. 1. 95. THE property certificate (Annex. 3) was issued by the Medical Officer of Govt. Ayurved Hospital, Dhanok, However, it seems that the candidature of the petitioner was not considered by the respondents on a very highly technical ground regarding the property certificate issued by the petitioner. According to the respondents, it should have been issued by the revenue authority and not by the medical officer and, therefore, they proceeded to issue a public advertisement dated 1. 2. 95 (Annex. 4) inviting applications from the public for the post of EDPBM. Though the petitioner was already working on the post of EDPBM at Dhanok, may be on provisional basis, he was not considered, therefore, on issuance of the advertisement (Annex. 4), the petitioner first approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short `cat') by way of O. A. No. 68/95. However, the learned Tribunal dismissed this original application by its impugned order dated 2. 12. 99 (Annex. 8 ). Hence, this petition.

(2.) WHEN asked, learned counsel Mr. Mathur for the respondents submitted that the property certificate was very much necessary in that case and the same ought to have been produced by the petitioner issued by the revenue authority and not by medical officer for the purpose of security. It is true that by way of precautionary measure, the respondents were justified in insisting for production of such property certificate but the Rules nowhere provide for production of such certificate issued by the revenue authority only and none else.

(3.) STAY petition is disposed of. .