UNION OF INDIA Vs. DIBESHWAR MAHTO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The applicant, who is respondent no. 1 in the present writ petition, had the occasion to approach the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Ranchi in O.A. No. 222/2010(R) seeking quashing of appointment of respondent no. 4/respondent no. 2 herein as Gramin Dak Sevak, Branch Post Master (GDSBPM), Pogra alleging contravention of Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2001. For convenience sake we would address the respondent no. 1 herein as the applicant and the respondent no. 4 in the O.A. as the private respondent henceforth. The applicant also sought a direction for his appointment on the said post at village Pogra as Branch Post Master professing that he fulfilled all requisite qualification for the said post. The appointment process was initiated by advertisement dated 19th December 2008 in which applicant with 25 other candidates participated. Private respondent was found to be the most successful candidate while the applicant was the second in the merit list. Appointment letter was issued on 17th June 2009 in favour of the private respondent. Applicant obtained information through RTI in relation to the recruitment exercise and thereafter assailed the appointment of the private respondent alleging that out of the two mandatory requirements as under, private respondent did not fulfill the second criteria:-

(3.) He alleged that one Sridhar Prasad Sahu had given an undertaking to provide one room to the private respondent for operating the post office at Pogra Branch Office. Private respondent was a permanent resident of the said village Pogra. He was a resident of village Bari, Dhamoul, Nusratpur, Patna. It so happened that immediately after the appointment of private respondent he was attached to Silli S.O. due to heavy pressure of NREGA work on 23.07.2009. Another advertisement was issued for appointment to the post of GDSBPM Sadma Branch Office in connection with Ormanjhi S.O. on 29th December 2008. In that exercise the successful candidate Bipin Kumar Upadhyay failed to submit the necessary undertaking of rent free accommodation for the Branch Office and taking up his residence in the jurisdiction of the P.O. within the stipulated time. Respondent no. 4/private respondent herein who had also participated in the recruitment exercise and was second in position in the merit list, was offered the appointment to the post of GDS BPM, Sadma BO vide memo dated 19th April 2011. In effect the private respondent initially appointed at Pogra BO assumed charge of Sadma BO after handing over charge of GDSBPM, Pogra BO on 18th May 2011 to Sridhar Sahu. Pogra BO remaining vacant another notification was issued on 5th August 2011 in which the applicant along with 20 other candidates participated. One Hemsagar Mahto who secured highest marks, was then engaged on the post of GDSBPM, Pogra BO vide memo dated 25th November 2011. One relevant event that took place in between was the coming into force of the amended Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011 w.e.f. 18th April 2011. The official respondents admitted before the learned CAT that the applicant is a permanent resident of P.O. Pogra, there was a discrepancy in his date of birth as per the school leaving certificate which is 18th February 1977 and 18th December 1977. Applicant filed petition before the learned Tribunal to remove the confusion relating to his date of birth also.