Central Administrative Tribunal - Patna
Ranjeet Kr Gupta vs Postal on 25 January, 2019
1 OA 864/2015
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PATNA BENCH, PATNA
OA /050/00864/2015
Date of order 25.01.2019
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. JAYESH V. BHAIRAVIA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE DINESH SHARMA, MEMBER (A)
Ranjeet Kumar Gupta @ Ranjeet Kumar Gupta, S/o- Late Ram
Chandra Saw Gupta, R/o- village- Hanspura, P.S.- Hanspusra,
District-Aurangabad. ......... Applicant.
By advocate: Sri O.P. Singh.
Verses
1. The Union of India through the Director General Cum
Secretary Department of Post, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi-
110001.
2. The Chief Post Master General, Bihar Circle, G.P.O.
Complex- Patna.
3. The Superintendent of Pot Offices, Aurangabad Division,
Aurangabad.
4. The Inspector of Postal, Daudnagar Sub Division,
Aurangabad.
5. Sarabjit Kumar, S/o- Shiv Prasad, GDS MD/MC at Khajuria,
B.O. in Daudnagar, Postal sub Dn. Aurangabad Postal
Division.
........ Respondents.
By advocate: Sri T.N. Thakur.
O R D E R (ORAL)
JAYESH V. BHAIRAVIA, MEMBER (J)- In the instant OA, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:-
"8.1 The appointment of respondent no.5 on the post of GDS MD/MC Khajuria B.O. Account with Daudnagar S.O. in Aurangabad Postal Division, issued by the Inspector Posts Daudnagar Sub Division dated 29.05.2014 (Annexure-A/3) maybe declared erroneous and the same maybe set aside.2 OA 864/2015
8.2 The respondent authorities may be directed to consider the claim of the applicant for this appointment on the post of GDS MD/MC in Khajuria B.O. account with Daudnagar S.O. in Aurangabad Postal Division with all consequential benefits. 8.3 The cost of litigation, incurred in filing the instant O.A. maybe awarded upon the respondents. 8.4 Any relief/reliefs may be granted to the applicants for ends of the justice.
2. In this case, the applicant has contended that in response to letter dated 24.03.2011, advertised by the signature of Postal Inspector Daudnagar, Sub-Division, Aurangabad, he has applied for the post of Rural Dak Sevak Dak Birak Sah Bahak for Khagari Post Office. According to the applicant vide letter dated 19.11.2013 issued by the Inspector Posts Daudnagar Sub-Division, Daudnagar, he was directed to appear personally on 26.11.2013 for verification of his original certificates and documents. (Annexure-A/1). The applicant appeared before the respondents for verification of his all testimonials. (Annexure- A/2).
3. Further, the case of the applicant is that he came to know that respondent no. 5, namely, Sarabjit Kumar, S/o- Shiv Prasad has been selected for the said post. The claim of the applicant is that he has secured 71.77% marks in Madhyma examination but the respondent authorities have appointed 3 OA 864/2015 respondent no. 5, i.e. Sarabjit Kumar, for the said post, who secured only 64.22% marks in Madhyma examination having same board. The applicant approached before the respondent authorities for redressal of his grievance but in vain. The claim of the applicant is that without considering his candidature and suitability/eligibility for the said post, the respondents have appointed respondents no.5, who has secured lesser marks in matric examination which is violative to fundamental rights of the applicant as guaranteed under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. L/c for the applicant further stated that the applicant is the most genuine and suitable waiting candidate for joining for the said post. L/c for applicant placed reliance on the judgment passed by Hon'ble Patna High Court, in the case of R.S. Yadav and ors. v/s State of Bihar and another, reported in 2013 (1) PLJR 964 and contended that every eligible person has equal right to apply and his candidature required to be considered under article 14 of the Constitution. Therefore, he prayed for cancellation of appointment of respondent no.5 and consideration for his appointment to the said post. Hence, this OA.
4. The respondents have filed their WS in which it is stated that total 28 applications were received for the said post 4 OA 864/2015 and according to marks obtained in Matriculation or equivalent Examinations, top 10 candidates were called for verification of certificates. It is admitted in the WS that the though the applicant is having higher marks as per mark sheet submitted by him, he could not appear for document verification on 26.11.2013 as he was called for the same vide letter dated 19.11.2013, therefore, he was not selected for the said post. It is further contended that since the selection process was over long back and now respondents are unable to issue fresh selection letter in favor of the candidates who could not fulfill the condition in selection process and remained absent in selection process. The respondents have placed reliance on Annexure-R/5 whereby the second list of another 10 candidates who were found to be meritorious, were called for documents verification vide letter dated 19.11.2013 in which the applicant was placed at Sl. No.4. However, the candidates at Sl. No. 1 to 7 and 9 were reminded absent in documents verification process. And thereafter the candidate placed at Sl. No. 8 (respondent no.5 herein) has been selected. Therefore, l/c for the respondents prays for dismissal of the present OA.
5. The applicant has filed rejoinder to the WS, wherein it has been pointed out that respondents have called only 10 5 OA 864/2015 candidates out of 28 candidates, which is against the principle of natural justice. The applicant has denied the contention made in the WS that he was not present before the respondent authorities on 26.11.2013 for verification of his documents, rather he attended in document verification process but the respondent authorities intentionally and deliberately shown him absent to accommodate respondent no.5, who has lesser marks.
6. It is further contended that CBI started inquiry against the appointments made by the respondents and the respondents had terminated the service of respondent no.5 on 03.01.2018 under Rule 8 (2) of GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules 2011, although the respondent no.5 had completed 3 years of service. He has preferred one OA No. 37/2018 before this Tribunal and obtained stay order against his termination order. Therefore, it is clear that the respondents have themselves proved that they have committed wrong in appointment. Therefore, the applicant has approached this Tribunal for a direction upon the respondents for cancellation of appointment of respondent no.5 and to consider the claim of the applicant for appointment for the said post. Hence, this OA.
6 OA 864/2015
7. We have heard the parties and perused the material placed on record. It is noticed that the post of GDS MD/MC Khajuria B.O., in account with Daudnagar S.O. in Aurangabad Postal Division was lying vacant, therefore, a notification for engagement to the said post was issued by Inspector of Post, Daudnagar, sub-Division, Aurangabad. Initially, the respondents had called 10 candidates who had obtained highest mark in matriculation or equivalent examination for documents verifications vide letter dated 12.05.2011. Out of this shortlisted candidates, candidate at Sl. No.3 did not appear for document verification, candidate at Sl. No. 1 had declared his unwillingness for engagement to the post, candidates at Sl. No. 4,6 & 9 were engaged as different GDS posts and candidates at Sl. No. 2,5,7,8 & 10 possessed fake mark sheets. The first list was exhausted without any selection. It is further noticed that after first list was exhausted then second list of 10 candidates was prepared and candidates were called for documents verification vide letter dated 19.11.2013 wherein the name of the applicant was placed at Sl. No. 4. As per the said letter, the candidates are required to remain present on 26.11.2013 for documents verification. The respondents have categorically stated that candidates at Sl. No. 1 to 7 and 9 were remained 7 OA 864/2015 absent in documents verification process. Therefore, the candidate at Sl No.8 in the said list (respondent no.5 in this OA) was selected. The selection process was over in the year 2013.
8. It is the grievance of the applicant that he has more marks then the selected candidate and he remained present in document verification process. However, the respondents have not shown him as present and deprived him for fair consideration of his candidature for the said post. Against this, the respondents have stated that since the applicant did not remain present, they have no other option except to consider the other candidate. At this juncture, it is brought to the notice to this Tribunal that selection and appointment of respondent no.5 has been terminated by the respondents. However, respondent no.5 has obtained stay order from this Tribunal. It is further noticed that applicant had approached Hon'ble High Court of Patna by way of CWJC No. 22085/2014, against non consideration of his candidature The said writ petition was ordered to be permitted to withdraw with liberty to pursue the matter before this Tribunal vide order dated 09.11.2015 and thereafter, the applicant has preferred this OA before this Tribunal on 23.11.2015.
8 OA 864/2015
9. Under the circumstances, we are of the considered view that if the post of GDS MD/MC Khajuria B.O., in account with Daudnagar S.O. in Aurangabad Postal Division is now vacant and the respondents are going to fill up it on the basis of merit list prepared in the year 2013, in that case, the claim of the applicant may also be considered. However, it is open for the respondents to take appropriate decision for mode of filling up of the said post in accordance with existing rules. 10 In view of the above directions, this OA is disposed of with no order as to costs.
(Dinesh Sharma)/M(A) (Jayesh V. Bhairavia)/(M) J Bp