Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 9]

Patna High Court

The Union Of India & Ors vs Satendra Kumar Choudhary & Anr on 4 September, 2017

Author: Ajay Kumar Tripathi

Bench: Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Rajeev Ranjan Prasad

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
           Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18549 of 2016
==========================================================
1. The Union of India through the Secretary cum D.G. of Posts, New
   Delhi.
2. The Chief Postmaster General, Bihar Circle, Patna.
3. The Postmaster General, Northern Region, Muzaffarpur.
4. The Director Postal Services, Northern Region, Muzaffarpur.
5. The      Superintendent      of   Post     Officer,   Samastipur   Division,
   Samastipur.
6. The Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Rosera Sub Division,
   Samastipur.
                                                           .... .... Petitioners
                                     Versus
1. Satendra Kumar Choudhary S/o Shri Bhajle Ram Choudhary R/o
   Village and P.O.- Ber Dharshyam, P.S. Kusheshwar Asthan, District-
   Darbhanga.
2. Sri Minnatullah S/o Moqueem GDSMD/MC at Ber Dharshyam
   Branch Post Office, in account with K. Asthan S.O. Rosera Sub
   Division, District- Samastipur.
                                         .... .... Respondents
==========================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s   :     Mr. Anjani Kumar Sharan, A.S.G.
                             Mr. Ravinder Kumar Sharma, C.G.C.
For the Respondent/s       : Mr. Jayant Karan, Advocate
                             Mr. Hemant Kumar Karan, Advocate
==========================================================
    CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI
                                 And
             HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
                         ORAL JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI) Date: 04-09-2017 Patna High Court CWJC No.18549 of 2016 dt.04-09-2017 2 Heard learned counsel for the Union of India and learned counsel for the private respondents.

2. The limited issue which is required to be considered in the present writ application preferred against the order of Central Administrative Tribunal (hereafter referred to as the "Tribunal"), Patna Bench, Patna in O.A. No. 167/2010 is whether it is open to a forum or a court to read something more into the terms of eligibility when the rules or guidelines are firmly place.

3. The submission of learned Assistant Solicitor General for the Union of India is that there is rule in place meant for Postal Gramin Dak Sevak, and Rule (iv) provides for method of recruitment. Nowhere the provision talks in terms of grant of any weightage for experience. It only shows that people with matriculation would be required to be given preference. The minimum qualification is 8th pass.

4. If that be so, then, naturally the petitioners i.e. the Postal Department selected private respondent no. 2 on the basis of having more marks than private respondent no. 1. However, the Tribunal has got carried away by the fact that Patna High Court CWJC No.18549 of 2016 dt.04-09-2017 3 the private respondent no. 1 had intermittently worked as a substitute and, therefore, despite less marks a weightage should have been given for experience especially for such people like the private respondent who has worked between the years 2001 to 2008.

5. No doubt, the Tribunal has relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Bikash Kumar since reported in (2006) SCC (L&S) 1937; but the said decision was rendered in the facts of the case and in absence of the provision for granting weightage for work experience, the Tribunal ought not to have exceeded its jurisdiction by reading more into the requirement which are already in place and which forms the basis for such recruitment.

6. The rationale of the Tribunal could have been valid if there was a vacuum as to the terms and conditions for such consideration but the present case is not of that kind.

7. In view of the above, the writ application is allowed. Order dated 11.02.2014 passed in O.A. No. 167/2010 by the Tribunal is quashed.

8. The private respondent no. 7 in O.A. No. 167/2010, Patna High Court CWJC No.18549 of 2016 dt.04-09-2017 4 i.e., respondent no. 2 in the present writ application, would continue to hold the post now.

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.) (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.) Rajeev/-

AFR/NAFR              NAFR
CAV DATE               NA
Uploading Date        07.09.2017
Transmission           NA
Date