HON'BLE MRS. K. NOORJEHAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
1. The applicant is challenging the appointment of the 4th respondent as GDS Branch Postmaster, Moolankavu BPO having been obtained by producing fabricated document relating to qualification and marks obtained in the SSLC examination
2. The applicant is one of the aspirant to the post of Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Postmaster, Moolankavu Branch Post Office. He passed SSLC examination with 449 marks out of 600. According to him, he satisfied the eligibility conditions prescribed in the notification. The documents were verified on 25.2.2010. There were only four candidates who attended the interview/verification. Since the result was not communicated to him, he submitted representation (A-4). He also submitted an application under the Right to Information Act for getting the details of the person selected which was answered by A-6. Aggrieved by A-6 he preferred an appeal before the Director of Postal Services, Northern Region, Calicut who is the appellate authority. On receipt of information furnished by the 1st respondent, the particulars of the selected candidate were verified and found to be incorrect. In the above circumstances, he submitted a representation for cancellation of the appointment of the selected candidate and to appoint him to the post on the basis of higher marks in the SSLC. As the 1st respondent has initiated steps to conduct fresh selection, he filed this O.A on the grounds that the selection and appointment of the 4th respondent is patently illegal and non est and he having secured the highest mark in SSLC is entitled to be selected and appointed.
3. The respondents in their reply statement submitted that 33 applications including 6 from Employment Exchange, were received for processing, out of which five candidates were short listed on the basis of marks obtained in the SSLC. On verification of records Smt. Suni K.J, the 4th respondent who secured the highest marks was offered the post. However, upon receipt of a complaint from the applicant an enquiry was conducted and the SSLC mark book of the selected candidate was found to be a fake one. In the meanwhile she rendered resignation which was accepted and the vacancy was again notified.
4. The applicant filed rejoinder contending that in Annexure A-15 issued by the Department of Posts it is ordered that during selection process of GDS a select panel of the candidates may be drawn up based on the sole criterion of merit and the panel should be operated in the event of a contingency of resignation by the 1st candidate even after joining, within one year. It is also contended that the select panel will be valid for one year from the date of finalisation.
5. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents produced before us.
6. It is seen that the Department of Posts issued instruction No. 19-14/2010-GDS dated 25.6.2010 on maintenance of select panel while finalising the selection of various categories of GDSs. The relevant portion is extracted below:
"6. It has been decided that in all cases of future engagement of all categories of Gramin Dak Sevaks including the cases which are currently in process and selections not finalilsed, a select panel of the candidates may be drawn up based on the sole criterion of merit. The panel should be operated in the event of the following contingencies:-
(i) Refusal by the meritorious candidate
(ii) Resignation by the 1st candidate even after joining within one year
(iii) Review made by the higher authority within one year
The select panel will be in the proportion of 5 candidates for one vacancy i.e. 1:5. The Select panel will be valid for one year from the date of finalisation and after that it would lose its validity.
A reading of the above would make it clear that the order is effective only from the date of issue i.e. 25.6.2010. The date of appointment of the 4th respondent or her resignation is not clear from the documents produced before us. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the order applies in the instant case also. In para 8(iii) of the reply statement, the respondents have submitted that the applicant can be considered for appointment, as the select panel is valid for one year. Therefore, we allow the Application and declare that the appointment of the 4th respondent to the post of GDS BPM, Moolankavu BPO is illegal and void having been secured by producing false document relating to qualification and marks secured in the SSLC examination and set aside the same. The applicant having stood second in the select panel, is entitled to be appointed to the post following A-15 order. The interim order dated 27.7.2020 is made absolute."
7. The OA is allowed as above. No costs.