Patna High Court
The Union Of India & Ors vs Abhay Kumar on 1 December, 2015
Author: Navaniti Prasad Singh
Bench: Navaniti Prasad Singh, Nilu Agrawal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15576 of 2015
===========================================================
1. The Union of India through the D.G. Cum Secretary, Department of Posts, Dak
Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. The Chief Postmaster General, Bihar Circle, Patna.
3. The Director of Postal Services (HQ), O/o the Chief Postmaster General, Bihar
Circle, Patna.
4. The Assistant Director (Staff and Recruitment), O/o the Chief Postmaster
General, Bihar Circle, Patna.
5. The Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Bhojpur Division, Ara.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Raj Shekhar Son of Sri Ravindra Nath Karan Resident of Mohalla - Anand
Nagar, O.P. Bikramganj, District - Rohtas.
.... .... Respondent/s
with
===========================================================
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15409 of 2015
===========================================================
1. The Union Of India through the D.G. Cum Secretary, Department of Posts, Dak
Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. The Chief Postmaster General, Bihar Circle, Patna.
3. The Director of Postal Services (HQ), O/o the Chief Postmaster General, Bihar
Circle, Patna.
4. The Assistant Director (Staff and Recruitment), O/o the Chief Postmaster
General, Bihar Circle, Patna.
5. The Sr. Superintendent of Posts Offices, Saran Division Chapra.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
Bipin Patel, son of Sri Narendra Prasad, Resident of Village-Amber Nai Sarai
Road, Bind Kothi (W), P.O- Biharsharif, District-Nalanda.
.... .... Respondent/s
with
===========================================================
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 16027 of 2015
===========================================================
1. The Union Of India through the D.G. Cum Secretary, Department of Posts, Dak
Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. The Chief Postmaster General, Bihar Circle, Patna.
3. The Director of Postal Services (HQ) O/o the Chief Postmaster General, Bihar
Circle, Patna.
4. The Assistant Director (Staff and Recruitment), O/o the Chief Postmaster
General, Bihar Circle, Patna.
5. The Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Gaya Division, Gaya.
Patna High Court CWJC No.15576 of 2015 dt.01-12-2015
2/5
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
Govind Kumar, Son of Sri Bindeshwar Ray, Resident of Village and P.O-
Raghopur, Police Station- Jurvanpur, District-Vaishali.
.... .... Respondent/s
with
===========================================================
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15234 of 2015
===========================================================
1. The Union of India through the D.G. Cum Secretary, Department of Posts, Dak
Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. The Chief Postmaster General, Bihar Circle, Patna.
3. The Director of Postal Services (HQ), O/o the Chief Postmaster General, Bihar
Circle, Patna.
4. The Assistant Director (Staff and Recruitment), O/o the Chief Postmaster
General, Bihar Circle, Patna.
5. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Bhojpur Division, Ara.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Rakesh Kumar Son of Sri Kameshwar Prasad Resident of Mohalla - Machchhal
Hatta, Ward No. 17, P.O. and Police Station - Barh, District - Patna.
.... .... Respondent/s
with
===========================================================
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15190 of 2015
===========================================================
1. The Union of India through the D.G. Cum Secretary, Department of Posts, Dak
Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. The Chief Postmaster General, Bihar Circle, Patna.
3. The Director of Postal Services (HQ), O/o the Chief Postmaster General, Bihar
Circle, Patna.
4. The Assistant Director (Staff and Recruitment), O/o the Chief Postmaster
General, Bihar Circle, Patna.
5. The Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Saran Division, Chapra.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Abhay Kumar Son of Sri Ajit Prasad Resident of Village - Larhrawan, P.O. -
Pachauri, Police Station - Deep Nagar, District - Nalanda.
.... .... Respondent/s
with
===========================================================
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15260 of 2015
===========================================================
1. The Union Of India through the D.G. Cum Secretary, Depatment of Posts, Dak
Bhawan, New Delhi.
Patna High Court CWJC No.15576 of 2015 dt.01-12-2015
3/5
2. The Chief Postmaster General, Bihar Circle, Patna.
3. The Director of Postal Services (HQ), O/o the Chief Postmaster General, Bihar
Circle, Patna.
4. The Assistant Director (Staff and Recruitment), O/o the Chief Postmaster
General, Bihar Circle, Patna.
5. The Sr. Superintendent of Posts Offices, Gaya Division Gaya.
6. The Sr. Postmaster, Gaya Head Post Office, Gaya.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Son of Sri Mithilesh Kumar Singh, Resident of Village and
P.O- Basadhi, Police Station- Bodh Gaya, District- Gaya.
.... .... Respondent/s
===========================================================
Appearance :
(In CWJC No. 15576 of 2015)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar(ASG)
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Advocate
Mr. Manish Prakash, Advocate
(In CWJC No. 15409 of 2015)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar(ASG)
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Advocate
Mr. Manish Prakash, Advocate
(In CWJC No. 16027 of 2015)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar(ASG)
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Advocate
Mr. Manish Prakash, Advocate.
(In CWJC No. 15234 of 2015)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar(ASG)
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Advocate
Mr. Manish Prakash, Advocate
(In CWJC No. 15190 of 2015)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar(ASG)
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Advocate
Mr. Manish Prakash, Advocate
(In CWJC No. 15260 of 2015)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar(ASG)
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Advocate
Mr. Manish Prakash, Advocate
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH
and
HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH)
Date: 01-12-2015
The Union of India has filed this lis of group of writ
Patna High Court CWJC No.15576 of 2015 dt.01-12-2015
4/5
petitions challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Patna Bench, Patna, by which the Tribunal allowed the original
applications. The applicants before the Tribunal had appeared for the
posts of Postal Assistants/Sorting Assistants. In the qualifications that
were provided for this post, English was a compulsory subject
requirement. The applicants had English as an alternative subject. The
Tribunal ,following its earlier orders, held that the alternative English
could not be distinguished from compulsory English, as the
requirement was of having English as a paper. In these cases, some of
the applicants had been selected and had joined; some having been
selected, had not yet joined, when the Department took the decision
not to treat alternative English as English, and thus either it terminated
the employment of people, who had already joined or refused to
permit the qualified persons to join. As a consequence of the order of
the Tribunal, they have now to join or continue having joined. It is
this that the Union of India is aggrieved by.
2. We have heard Sri Sanjay Kumar, Assistant Solicitor
General for Union of India and learned counsel for the sole contesting
respondent in each cases, who were the applicants before the Tribunal
With their consent, we dispose of these writ petitions at this stage
itself.
3. This question we have already decided in several writ
Patna High Court CWJC No.15576 of 2015 dt.01-12-2015
5/5
petitions filed by Union of India, including C.W.J.C. No. 11816 of
2015 (Union of India and others Versus Ajeet Kumar), disposed of on
24-9-2015, and we have agreed with the view taken by the Tribunal.
We have consequently held that no distinction can be made between English as an alternative subject or English as a main paper. Learned counsel for the Union of India fairly states that he has instruction that the Department has accepted the Judgment and implemented the same.
4. In view of the aforesaid, there being no other distinction, we would follow our judgment aforesaid, more so, when the Department has implemented the same, and dismiss all these writ petitions with a direction that those, who were not allowed to join would now be permitted to join immediately, and those, who have been dismissed on this count alone, would be reinstated with their continuity, but they would not be entitled to back wages for the period they were not in service in the peculiar facts and circumstances.
(Navaniti Prasad Singh, J) B.K.Roy/-
(Nilu Agrawal, J) U