Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Jagdish Prasad vs Union Of India Through Its Secretary / ... on 28 August, 2012
(Reserved on 29.08.2012) CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH ALLAHABAD HONBLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK , MEMBER (J) HONBLE MR. SHASHI PRAKASH, MEMBER (A) Original Application Number. 191 OF 2009. ALLAHABAD this the 05th day of October , 2012. Jagdish Prasad, S/o Shri Ram Kishore, R/o Village and Post Garaha, Kaptanganj, District- Basti. Applicant. VE R S U S 1. Union of India through its Secretary / Director General, Government of India, Ministry of Communication, Department of Post, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi. 2. Chief Post Master General, U.P. Circle, Lucknow. 3. Post Master General, Gorakhpur Region, District - Gorakhpur. 4. Superintendent of Post Offices, Basti Division, Basti. 5. Sub Divisional Inspector of Post Offices, Harraiya, District- Basti. 6. Abidullah, R/o Village Labdahia, Post Office Sukrauli, District- Basti. ..Respondents Advocate for the applicant: Sri Pankaj Srivastava Advocate for the Respondents: Sri S. Srivastava O R D E R
Delivered by Honble Mr. Sanjeev Kasushik, J.M. By way of the instant original application filed under section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 the applicant has prayed for quashing the appointment order dated 15.09.1997 (Annexure-8) whereby the respondent No. 6 has been appointed on the post of Extra Departmental Sub Post Master (Postman) at Branch Post Office, Keshavpur, District- Basti. Prayer has also been made for a direction to the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 to offer appointment to the applicant on the post of Extra Departmental Sub Post Master (Postman) and further direction to respondent No. 4 to produce the entire records pertaining to the appointment procedure of Sub Post Office, Mahadeva, Tilakpur & Keshavpur held in the year 1996 and 1997.
2. Factual matrix of the case are that in response to the Notification dated 15.07.1996 for appointment to the post of Extra Departmental Delivery Agent, Branch Post Office Mahadeva (Pekolia) , the applicant applied in the prescribed format alongwith other necessary documents as well as testimonials and only three candidates were sorted out for final consideration (Annexure -1). As per the notification, the merit list was to be prepared for appointment on the post in question on the basis of marks obtained in High School. As the applicant having highest marks in High School was overlooked he made a complaint on 16.01.1997 to respondent No. 4 (Annexure-2). In the month of October 1996 the respondent No. 4 called the names of eligible candidates from Employment Exchange, Basti for appointment of Extra Departmental Sub Post Master (Postman), Keshavpur in which the name of the applicant was forwarded and he was considered for appointment in the final list of three candidates (Annexure-3). Again the respondent No. 4 called the names of eligible candidates from Employment Exchange, Basti for appointment of Extra Departmental Sub Post Master (Postman), Branch Post Office Tilakpur and again the name of the applicant was sent by the Employment Exchange and he applied in the prescribed format alongwith other necessary documents but the respondents ignored the merit of the applicant and appointed the candidates on pick and choose basis because as per the appointment chart to the post of Extra Departmental Delivery Agent, Tilakpur (Captanganj), Basti, the applicant was having highest marks amongst all the five candidates (Annexure -4). Apart from this the applicant was also considered for appointment on the post of Extra Departmental Sub Post Master (Postman), Branch Post Office Keshavpur wherein he was selected but the respondent No. 4 vide letter dated 14.07.1997 asked him to submit ownership of residence in any of the villages mentioned therein upto 24.07.1997. Thereafter on 19.07.1997 the applicant submitted the ownership of residence duly verified by the Gram Pradhan of the concerned village. As the applicant did not receive any response he approached the respondent No. 4 then he has been told that some other retrenched person has been appointed in his place at Branch Post Office, Keshavpur. Aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents the applicant made representation to the Honble President of India as well as Minister of Communication. He also filed an application under Right to Information Act on 22.09.2006 and in response thereto, the respondent No. 4 has supplied the information pertaining to the recruitment of E.D.M.P in the year 1996 and 1997. It is also alleged that Shri Abidullah Khan (respondent No. 6) directly made an application on 16.08.1997 to the Ministry of Communication for appointment to the post of E.D.D.A, Sukhrauli Chaudhary (Annexure-6) and upon receipt of direction from Additional Private Secretary to the Minister of Communication, the respondent No. 4 without considering any merit or without following procedure for appointment, the respondent No. 4 vide letter dated 21.08.1997 (Annexure 7) directed the Appointing Authority i.e. Sub Divisional Inspector of Post, Harraiya Sub Division, Basti to appoint Shri Abidullah Khan on the post of E.D.D.A, Keshavpur and in response thereto, he was appointed to the post of A.D.A.A, Keshavpur on 15.09.1997 (Annexure 8). It is submitted that the appointment of Shri Abidullah Khan (respondent No. 4) is totally illegal and malafide as appointment of the respondent No. 6 has been made on the direction of higher authority and that too he was in the list of sorted out candidates, who were placed in the comparative chart prepared by the respondents, hence the O.A.
3. On notice, the respondents filed their Counter Affidavit and resisted the claim of the applicant. It is submitted that to fill up the post of E.D.A.A , Mahadeva, the appointing authority sent a requisition to the Employment Exchange who sponsored the name of five candidates including the applicant and after completing formalities Shri Vishwa Nath Prasad, who was found most suitable and meritorious, had been appointed on the post vide order dated 26.11.1996. It is further submitted that to fill up the post of E.D.A.A , Tilakpur, the appointing authority also sent a requisition to the Employment Exchange who sponsored the name of five candidates including the applicant and after completing formalities Shri Shiv Mohar, who was found most suitable and meritorious, had been appointed on the post in question vide order dated 26.05.1997. Similarly to fill up the post of E.D.A.A , Keshavpur, a requisition was sent to the Employment Exchange who again sponsored the name of five candidates including the applicant but none of the candidates were found suitable for appointment on the post. It is also submitted that the respondents no. 6, who had already worked for about two years as stop gap arrangement, submitted an application for his accommodation on any vacant post of ED Agent. Therefore, keeping in view his earlier service, he had been engaged by the competent authority as EDDA, Keshwapur on 23.08.1997 (Annexure CA-8). It is further submitted that after the engagement of respondent No. 6 the applicant kept mum for about 11 years and has filed the instant O.A in the year 2008 and sought dismissal of the O.A.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant denying the pleas taken by the respondents in their Counter Affidavit, filed Rejoinder Affidavit. It is submitted that the appointment of the respondent No. 6 has neither been sponsored by the Employment Exchange nor the procedure for appointment has been adopted by the respondents and the appointing authority has appointed him at the behest of the order issued by the higher authority, thus the action of the respondents is violative of Arctile 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
5. We have heard learned counsel for both sides at length and perused the pleading as well.
6. Undisputedly the respondent No. 6 did not submitted application pursuant to the advertisement. His application was considered on the recommendation of Additional Secretary to the Ministry of Communication and without adhering well established principle of employment the respondent No. 6 was given appointment which is not permissible and is in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is well settled law that for appointment to a public post applications must be invited from the eligible candidates. In the present case, the respondent No. 6 was appointed the respondent No. 6 was appointed by dehorsing the rules and contrary to the judgment of Apex Court on the subject. Thus the appointment order dated 15.09.1997 whereby appointing respondent No. 6 as Extra Departmental Sub Post Master (Postman) at Branch Post Office, Keshavpur, District- Basti cannot be sustained and accordingly the same is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicant according to merit. No costs.
(MEMBER- A) (MEMBER- J) /Anand/ ?? ?? ?? ?? 7 O.A No. 191/2009