Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 582 (ORI)

Sachala Dei v. Ganesh Chandra Pradhan

2003-09-16

L.MOHAPATRA

body2003
JUDGMENT L. MOHAPATRA, J. — The petitioner in this writ application challenge the judgment and order passed by the Cen¬tral Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No.439 of 2000 quashing the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Extra Departmental Branch Post Master, Narayanipara Branch Office. 2. The opposite party No.1 was the applicant before the Tribunal. He had filed the original application before the Trib¬unal to quash the appointment of petitioner to the post of Extra Departmental Branch Post Master, Narayanipara Branch Office and for a further direction to appoint him in that post. As it ap¬pears from the record, six candidates including the present petitioner and the opposite party No.1 applied for the said post. Out of the six candidates, three were not considered as their applications were not complete in all respects. Out of the rest three applicants, the opposite party No.1 was found to have secured 50.40% of marks in Matriculation whereas the present petitioner had secured 44.71% and the third candidate had secured 33.28%. So far as the income from agricultural source is con¬cerned, it appears that the petitioner had income of Rs. 8000/- from agricultural source and Rs. 12,000/- from other source while the opposite party No.1 had income of Rs. 800 from agriculture and Rs. 7,200 from other source. Taking this aspect into consid¬eration, the department had given appointment to the present petitioner to the post of Extra Departmental Branch Post Master. Before the Tribunal the opposite party No.1 challenged the ap¬pointment of the petitioner on the ground that he was more meri¬torious than that of the present petitioner and the same could not have been ignored while selecting the candidate for appoint¬ment. Apart from the above, it was contended that due weightage should have been given to a more meritorious candidate even though he had less income from agricultural source. The Tribunal consid¬ering all these aspects of the matter found that even though the opposite party No.1 has less income from agricultural source, he was much more meritorious than that of the petitioner and accord¬ingly quashed the appointment of the petitioner and directed the department to appoint the opposite party No.1 in the said post. The learned counsel Shri Dora appearing for the petitioner before this Court drew the attention of the Court to the eligi¬bility criteria provided for appointment to such a post. The learned counsel Shri Dora appearing for the petitioner before this Court drew the attention of the Court to the eligi¬bility criteria provided for appointment to such a post. It appears that a candidate seeking appointment to the said post must have passed the Matriculation or equivalent examination, must be prepared to provide suitable rent free accommodation for the post office in the post village, must have adequate agricul¬tural landed property or immovable assets owned exclusively in his own name, should be permanent resident of the post village, should have independent source of income derived from agricultur¬al property or immovable assets having adequate means of liveli¬hood. Referring to the aforesaid eligibility criteria, Shri Dora submitted that merely because the opposite party No.1 had secured more marks than that of the petitioner in the Matriculation Examination, no additional weightage should be given to him. On the other hand, the opposite party No.1 was neither a resident of the post village nor had adequate income from agricultural source. In comparison to opposite party No.1, the petitioner stands on a much better footing in this regard as she was not only a resident of the said post village but also has adequate income from the agricultural source. The Tribunal judgment was basically chal¬lenged on the ground that under the Rules no additional weightage should be given to a candidate who has secured more marks in Matriculation examination. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite party No.1 in which it is stated that though the opposite party No.1 had less income from agricultural source he was much more meritorious than that of the petitioner. The Tribunal having taken the aforesaid facts into consideration has rightly allowed the application of the opposite party No.1. The department, opposite parties 2 to 4 have also filed a counter affidavit. It appears from the said counter that pursuant to the requisition made by the department for appointment to the post, the Employ¬ment Exchange, Khurda sponsored names of 40 candidates but it was not acted upon since the list was received after the stipulated date. In response to public notice, only five candidates offered their candidature. Out of the said five candidates, the petition¬er had secured 44.71% of marks in the Matriculation Examination and claimed to have income from agricultural and other source to the tune of Rs. 26,500/-. In response to public notice, only five candidates offered their candidature. Out of the said five candidates, the petition¬er had secured 44.71% of marks in the Matriculation Examination and claimed to have income from agricultural and other source to the tune of Rs. 26,500/-. The opposite party No.1 had secured 50.40% of marks in Matriculation and had income of Rs. 800/- from agricultural source and Rs. 8000/- from other source. Considering the fact that the petitioner had better source of income from agricultural and other source and also was a resident of the post village, she was selected for appointment. 4. On consideration of the averments made in the writ application and the counter affidavits filed by the respective parties as well as argument advanced for the parties, this Court is called upon to decide as to whether the finding of the Tribun¬al that the opposite party No.1 being more meritorious should be appointed against the post is justified or not. 5. The eligibility criteria provided for appointment to the said post clearly indicates that in order to apply for ap¬pointment to the post, the candidate must be a Matriculate or should have passed the equivalent examination and should be within 18 to 63 years of age. There is no dispute that both the petitioner and opposite party No.1 have fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Both the parties also fulfilled the criteria so far as it relates to income from agricultural source and other source. The only difference as it appears is that the petitioner had much better income from agricultural source and other source than that of the opposite party No.1 whereas the petitioner had secured much less mark than that of the opposite party No.1 in Matricula¬tion examination. There is no dispute that the petitioner belongs to the post village whereas the opposite party No.1 does not belong to the post village. In this connection, reference may be made to Annexure-A filed along with the counter affidavit by the opposite parties 2 to 4. From the said document, it appears that the earlier guidelines laid down for appointment to the post were reconsidered and some changes were made. So far as educational qualification is concerned, it is mentioned as follows :- “The educational qualifications for appointment as ED Sub Postmaster and ED Branch Postmaster should Matriculation. From the said document, it appears that the earlier guidelines laid down for appointment to the post were reconsidered and some changes were made. So far as educational qualification is concerned, it is mentioned as follows :- “The educational qualifications for appointment as ED Sub Postmaster and ED Branch Postmaster should Matriculation. The selection should be based on the marks secured in the Matricula¬tion or equivalent examinations. No weightage need be given for any qualification higher than Matriculation.” 6. This clearly indicates that selection to the post for appointment should be based on the marks secured in the Matricu¬lation Examination. In our view, a person having more marks than a competitor should be given due weightage for the same. So far as adequate income is concerned, admittedly the opposite party No.1 had less income from agricultural source than that of the petitioner. It is not the case of the petitioner that the oppo¬site party No.1 has no source of income from agricultural source. It appears that opposite party No.1 though has less income from agricultural source, has also income from other source and the total income if taken into consideration, does not appear to be inadequate. There is no Rule or guideline which indicates that a person having better agricultural income shall be given prefer¬ence. We, therefore, on consideration of these eligibility cri¬teria, are of the opinion that the opposite party No.1 having got income from agriculture and other source should be given a preference over the petitioner since he had secured much more marks in the Matriculation Examination. 7. So far as the third ground taken by Shri Dora that the opposite party No.1 does not belong to the post village as it is required for appointment, reference may be made to the counter affidavit filed by the opposite parties 2 to 4. In para-10(ix) of the counter affidavit, it is stated that as per the latest Rules in force any eligible person can apply for the post of EDBMP at any place subject to condition that the selected candidate will take his residence in the post village and will provide rent-free accommodation in the post village for functioning of the post office. Therefore, only because opposite party No.1 does not belong to the post village, his application could not have been rejected. Therefore, only because opposite party No.1 does not belong to the post village, his application could not have been rejected. The opposite party No.1 having taken house in the post village and being capable to provide a rent free accommodation in the post village for functioning of the post office, in our view, he fulfills the eligibility criteria. 8. In view of the discussions made above, we do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the order of the Tribun¬al and accordingly we do not find any merit in the writ applica¬tion. The writ application is dismissed. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. SUJIT BARMAN ROY, C.J. I agree. Application dismissed.