SASHI KUMAR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application is directed against the order dated 25.8.2006, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Circuit Bench at Ranchi, whereby O.A. filed by respondent No. 4 has been allowed.

(2.) VIDE impugned order, appointment of the present petitioner has been quashed and a direction issued to consider the case of respondent No. 4 for appointment in his place.

(3.) THE records relating to filling up of the post of EDBPM Bagra BO has been examined again in the light of the order dated 11.12.2002 of Hon ble CAT Patna Bench in OA 79/2001 with the following observation that Shri Abhishek Kumar although possess more marks in matriculation examination than that of Shri Shashi Kumar Singh but he had simply submitted sale deed without mutation slip or rent receipt. He was found not fulfilling the property qualification as on or before 11.04.2000 i.e. the last date of receipt of application, which is mandatory to the post of EDBPM. In view of the facts stated above, the representation of Shri Abhisekh Kumar Singh has been gone through carefully. The claim of Shri Abhisekh Kumar Singh does not find merit and hence rejected. 4 Aggrieved of this order, respondent No. 4 filed another OA No. 333 of 2004 which has been decided by the C.A.T. vide impugned judgment. The Tribunal noticed that last date of submission of application was 16.4.2000. Respondent No. 4 acquired agricultural land situated in village -Khaplawani P.O. Kelheiya via Chatra by virtue of sale deed dated 31.3.2000 i.e. prior to the date for making application. However, the mutation was ordered on 5.5.2000 i.e. alter the last date of submission of application. Selection Board rejected his claim for appointment only on the ground that land had not been mutated in favour of respondent No. 4 as on the last date for making application and despite his better merit than the petitioner, he was denied appointment. The Tribunal noticed these facts and held that mutation entry neither creates nor extinguishes title or ownership. Since respondent No. 4 was otherwise owner of the property by virtue of (sic) appointment was wrongly rejected.