Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.4165-CAT of 2002 Date of Decision:
05. 03.2014 Rajender Parkash ..Petitioner Versus Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI Present : Mr. R.S.Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel for UOI- Respondents No.2 to 5. None for respondent No.6. **** SANJAY KISHAN KAUL C.J.
(Oral) The dispute inter-se the parties i.e. the petitioner and respondent No.6, pertain to the post of Extra Departmental Branch Post Master (EDBPM) to which respondent No.6 was appointed.
2. Respondents No.2 to 5 being the Postal Department sought to fill in the post of EDBPM of village Sandal-Kalan, District Sonepat, for which the names were sought from the Employment Exchange. Four names were sponsored including that of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that the Service Rules required that the recruitment should be made from the names sponsored by the Employment Exchange. Service Rules further provided for a permanent resident of the village where post office is located for a candidate to be eligible as the work of post-office has to be attended to. Post the interview, the petitioner was found more meritorious and was issued a selection letter dated 12.05.1997. The petitioner was to undergo medical examination but the same was postponed on one pretext or the other. Instead of appointing the petitioner, respondent No.6 who was temporarily appointed as the Extra Departmental Runner (E.D.R.) and was thereafter holding the temporary charge of EDBPM was given the regular appointment. The petitioner was naturally aggrieved by this and made representations inter-alia raising the issue of non-sponsorship of respondent No.6 name through Employment Exchange. Sharma Ravinder 2014.03.06 10:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.4165-2002 2 3. The petitioner filed O.A. No.451/HR/98 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, but this petition was dismissed on 13.02.2002. A perusal of the order shows that respondent No.6 was actually working regularly as E.D.R. from 19.05.1993 in the same post- office. On the regular incumbent post of EDBPM being relieved on 07.02.1997, respondent No.6 was given the charge of EDBPM on 14.02.1997 on temporary basis till regular appointment of a suitable candidate was made. The names were sought from the Employment Exchange and four candidates were sponsored but only three candidates including the petitioner appeared. However, when the selection process was on, respondent No.6 made an application dated 03.04.1997 stating that he fulfills the eligibility conditions for the post of EDBPM and in accordance with the Departmental Rules he was to be given priority over other candidates. However, the claim of respondent No.6 was rejected on the ground that he was not a permanent resident of village Sandal Kalan where the Post-Office was located. Respondent No.6 made a representation to the higher authorities on 14.05.1997 against his non-selection on which the concerned authorities restrained issuance of formal appointment orders till further orders. The case of respondent No.6 was examined and in the light of existing instructions the condition of permanent residence was found to be enforceable only after selection and in case the candidate selected had failed to satisfy this condition after selection, the next available candidate in the merit list was to be considered for appointment. If this embargo was set- aside, respondent No.6 was the most meritorious candidate in this selection process and thus was so appointed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner once again emphasized the aspect of requirement of obtaining the name only through the Employment Exchange. In this behalf, the relevant instruction is dated 12.09.1998 (Annexure R-2/A), the relevant extract of which is as under:- “…… (i) When an E.D. Post falls vacant in the same office or in any office in the same place and if one of the existing prefers to work against that post, he may be allowed to be appointed against that vacant post without coming through the Employment Exchange, provided he is suitable for the other post and fulfils all the required conditions.”
. Sharma Ravinder 2014.03.06 10:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.4165-2002 3 5. The aforesaid shows that the mandatory requirement of obtaining the names through Employment Exchange would not be applicable where one of the existing employees prefers to work against that post provided he is suitable and fulfill all the conditions.
6. The next limb of the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent No.6 was not a resident of village Sandal-Kalan but was staying in village Sandal-Khurd which is one Kilometer away. Once again in this behalf the relevant administrative instruction which has been taken note of in the impugned order dated 06.12.1993 (Annexure R-3) takes care of the position as under:- “…….(ii) The Board also decided that having regard to the judgment of the CAT, it may be clarified that while making selections for appointment to ED posts, permanent residence in the village/delivery jurisdiction of the ED Post Office need not be insisted upon as a pre-condition for appointment. However, it should be laid down as a condition of appointment that any candidate, who is selected, must before appointment to the post take up his residence in the village/delivery jurisdiction of the ED Post Office as the case may be.”. 7. Thus, what the requirement is that most meritorious candidate be selected even if he is living outside the village but post appointment he would have to move to the village. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that as per the instructions, respondent No.6 did not move to the village. However, this issue has not been raised any where.
8. We wanted to verify as to how respondent No.6 had come into picture, which is now apparent from the records produced, which shows consideration of respondent No.6 along with all other candidates and his being not selected on the ground of living outside the village.
9. In so far as the relative merit is concerned, it has been explained that the same is based on the marks secured in matriculation and no weightage is to be given for any qualifications higher than the matriculation. The petitioner had secured 391 marks out of total 900 marks in matriculation which is 43.44% whereas respondent No.6 had obtained 457 out of 900 marks i.e. 50.77%. Thus, undisputedly, respondent No.6 was more meritorious. Sharma Ravinder 2014.03.06 10:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.4165-2002 4 10. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, no ground is made out to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Dismissed. (SANJAY KISHAN KAUL) CHIEF JUSTICE (ARUN PALLI) JUDGE0503.2014 ‘ravinder’ Sharma Ravinder 2014.03.06 10:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document