SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) Applicant in O.A. No. 287 of 2009 is aggrieved by order dated 8th August, 2011 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna ( Circuit Court at Ranchi), whereunder the learned tribunal dismissed the Original Application, finding no merit in it. Applicant had challenged a communication dated 15.04.2009 ( Annexure-8) issued by the Respondent No. 2 and also prayed for a direction upon the respondents to comply the order dated 16.07.2004 passed in O.A. No. 663 of 2000 and 30 of 2000 in its true spirit by constituting a Medical Board to fill up the vacant post of Extra Departmental Mail Carrier (EDMC) at Baghbera by taking the cycling test as essential qualification for handicapped person.

(3.) Earlier against a single vacancy for physically handicapped persons to the post of EDMC at Baghbera Branch Post Office, advertised in October, 1998, applicant was selected amongst 38 candidates whose names were requisitioned from the employment exchange and were called for interview. He worked for some time but on dispute being raised by another candidate, private respondent herein about his selection, the Post Master General directed the termination of the appointment of the applicant on 06.09.2000. Private respondent had also filed an application bearing O.A. No. 390 of 2000 raising the aforesaid grievances. Since the issue was under examination by the respondent authorities of the Postal Department, the said Original Application was disposed of vide order dated 01.06.2000 directing the respondent Post Master General, Ranchi to take a decision in accordance with law within six weeks. The applicant challenged his order of termination in O.A. No. 30 of 2000 while the private respondent had also preferred and Original Application bearing No. 663 of 2000 seeking quashing of the order dated 18.08.2000 of the PMG, whereby fresh recruitment had been ordered. He has also prayed for a direction to the respondents to appoint him on the post of EDDA/ EDMC of the said post office contending that he had obtained more marks in SCC and was more meritorious than the present applicant. He also possessed the other requirements of the post and deserved to be selected. The learned Tribunal heard both the Original Applications together and found that the post of EDMC at Baghbera Branch was reserved for physically handicapped person and applications were invited only from the physically handicapped persons for appointment. It found that irregularities were perpetuated right form assessing the eligibility and merit of the each candidate. It came to the opinion that a fresh recruitment in calling for fresh application for the said post was not proper and as such would prejudice the case of the candidate who had applied to the post in the year 1998, as it would amount to widening the zone of consideration to the disadvantage of the existing candidates. Accordingly, a direction was issued to redo the selection for the said post from the same candidates whose names were forwarded by the employment exchange after ascertaining their eligibility by obtaining assessment of disabilities through Medical examination from the Medical Board or Civil Surgeon concerned and adopting the selection procedure as per rules. The learned tribunal also had taken note of the fact that one of the requirements of the post was the knowledge of cycling. It had also made reference to the office memorandum of the department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms whereunder percentage of the reservation was distributed amongst the three categories of physically handicapped persons:-