Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 100 (ORI)

SUSANTA KUMAR SARANGI v. UNION OF INDIA

2006-02-06

A.K.SAMANTARAY, I.M.QUDDUSI

body2006
I. M. QUDDUSI, J. ( 1 ) IN both the Writ Petitions common questions of law relating to selection of Extra Departmental Branch Post Masters and interpretation of Rules in that regard being involved, they were heard analogously and are disposed of by this common judgment. According to the relevant Rules, selection for above appointment should be made on the basis of marks secured by the candidates in the Matriculation or equivalent examination. ( 2 ) EARLIER, in OJC No. 2476 of 1997 decided on 12. 2. 1998 a view was taken by this Court that in determining the percentage of marks in H. S. C. Examination of the candidate, the differential marks in the main examination and the compartmental examination on a particular subject/group of subjects should be added to the total marks obtained by a candidate in the main examination and after deducting the marks of those subjects in which he had appeared in compartmental, percentage should be worked out. ( 3 ) THE petitioners in both the Writ Petitions appeared in the interview for 'selection of Exta Departmental Branch Post Master (for short 'edbpm') held for different branch post offices. ( 4 ) OJC No. 11777 of 1999 has been filed by petitioner-Susanta Kumar Sarangi, who was Opp. Party No. 5 in O. A. No. 478 of 1993 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The said O. A. was filed by Haribandhu Sahu who is Opp. Party No. 5 in the aforesaid OJC No. 11777 of 1999, challenging selection of Susanta Kumar Sarangi in the post of EDBPM of Kadua Branch Post Office under Aska Division of Ganjam District. The names of the petitioner and Opp. Party No. 5 along with some others were sponsored by the Employment Exchange for the said post. All the applicants including these persons were asked to fill up the form and enclose therewith necessary documents. As stated above, O. A. No. 478 of 1993 was filed by Opp. Party No. 5 herein before the Tribunal, inter alia, on the ground that the petitioner was not a resident of Kadua Mangarajpur and he was more meritorious in comparison to instant petitioner in Matriculation standard. The request of Opp. As stated above, O. A. No. 478 of 1993 was filed by Opp. Party No. 5 herein before the Tribunal, inter alia, on the ground that the petitioner was not a resident of Kadua Mangarajpur and he was more meritorious in comparison to instant petitioner in Matriculation standard. The request of Opp. Party No. 5 was rejected on the ground that the departmental instruction provides that the candidate may belong to a different village, but he should be prepared to take up residence in the post office village on being selected and no person can be discriminated on the ground of his residence or place of birth in the public employment. In respect of comparative merit between the instant petitioner and the Opp. Party No. 5, it was submitted that Opp. Party No. 5 passed matriculation in compartmental examination whereas the instant petitioner passed matriculation in one chance. The petitioner had got 34. 14% of marks whereas Opp. Party No. 5 (Petitioner in O. A. No. 478 of 1993) had got 51% of marks. The tribunal did not accept the contention of the instant petitioner that a person who passes Matriculation in one chance is inherently more meritorious than a person who passes Matriculation in compartmental even if the second person gets more marks and also while computing marks of a person who has passed matriculation in compartmental the marks in the subject in which he has taken the compartmental examination have to be added by deducting the marks obtained in the subjects in the earlier examination. The Tribunal had also indicated in its judgment that this issue had already been decided earlier in O. A. No. 631 of 1997 and therefore, the merit of the petitioner in the instant Writ Petition was found lower in comparison to the merit of Opp. Party No. 5. Therefore, the selection and appointment of the instant petitioner was quashed and the Departmental authority was directed to consider the candidature of the persons who were originally within the zone of consideration strictly in accordance with the rules and instructions, and in the light of the observation and direction made by the Tribunal in its impugned judgment. ( 5 ) OJC No. 2675 of 2000 has been filed by Smt. Puspalata Pradhan challenging dismissal of her O. A. No. 669 of 1999 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack vide order dated 19. 10. ( 5 ) OJC No. 2675 of 2000 has been filed by Smt. Puspalata Pradhan challenging dismissal of her O. A. No. 669 of 1999 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack vide order dated 19. 10. 1999. She had filed the aforesaid OA with a prayer for direction to the Departmental Respondents to give an appointment to her in the post of EDBPM, Kundheigola Branch Office and for quashing of the selection and appointment of Saudamini Garanayak, who is Opp. Party No. 4 in O. J. C. No. 2675 of 2000. In this case the petitioner as well as opp. party No. 4 both were sponsored by the Employment Exchange for consideration of their appointment in the above post. The petitioner got 306 marks out of 800 and Opp. Party No. 4 got 279 marks out of 800 in the High School Certificate Examination. But Opp. Party No. 4 had to pass Supplementary High School Examination which she appeared and got 39 marks in English Paper-1 and 21 marks in English Paper-11, totalling 60 marks in these two papers. Therefore, Departmental Authority had counted the marks obtained by Opp. Party No. 4 in the Supplementary H. S. C. Examination after deducting the marks in the main examination in those two papers. Thus, she secured 314 marks out of 800 as against 306 secured by the petitioner. Therefore she was declared selected. In this case also the petitioner raised the question that while computing marks of a person who had passed matriculation in compartmental, the marks in the subject in which he has taken the compartmental examination have to be added by deducting the marks obtained in the subject in the earlier examination and since this issue has already been decided in O. A. No. 631 of 1997, the same remained undisputed thereafter. Further in the instant case the tribunal found that besides the petitioner and Opp. Party No. 4 there was a third candidate in the field, namely, Manoj Kumar Dehury, who had secured 268 marks out of 700 which worked out to be 38. 28%. The petitioner admittedly had got 306 marks out of 800 marks which worked out to 38. 25%. The marks of Opp. Party No. 5 taken at 314 out of 800 works out to 39. 25%. The marks obtained by Opp. No. 4 taken at 314 out of 800 works out to 39. 28%. The petitioner admittedly had got 306 marks out of 800 marks which worked out to 38. 25%. The marks of Opp. Party No. 5 taken at 314 out of 800 works out to 39. 25%. The marks obtained by Opp. No. 4 taken at 314 out of 800 works out to 39. 25% and that of the instant petitioner is 38. 25%. Therefore the petitioner got lesser marks in comparison to Mr. Dehury and as such her name would come at SI. 3 in the merit list. Even if, for the sake of argument it is presumed that Opp. Party No. 4 is not entitled to get appointment due to compartmental examination, the next person entitled to get appointment would have been Mr. Manoj Kumar Dehury, who got more percentage of marks in comparison to the petitioner in the Matriculation Examination and therefore the petitioner had no right to claim appointment when one more meritorious persons was available before her. Therefore, the Tribunal found that the petitioner had not been able to make out a case for the relief claimed by her and dismissed the Original Application. ( 6 ) OFFICE Memorandum of the Department of Post Offices dated 12. 3. 1993 was issued revising the educational qualifications prescribed for recruitment of the Extra Departmental Agents. According to the said memorandum, the educational qualification for appointment as ED Sub-post Masters and ED Branch Post Masters was fixed as Matriculation and it was directed that the selection should be on the basis of the marks secured in the Matriculation or equivalent examination. There was a stipulation that no weightage need be given for any qualification higher than Matriculation. Therefore, the selection of the candidates was based on the basis of marks secured in the Matriculation or equivalent examination. Therefore, a candidate should have passed Matriculation or equivalent examination. A candidate who is shown to have failed in one or two subjects in the High School Certificate Examination or equivalent examination having the liberty to make an attempt to get himself qualified in such papers/subjects cannot be said to have passed Matriculation or equivalent examination, unless he appears in the Compartmental Examination and/or obtains minimum qualifying marks. Therefore, a candidate can be said to have passed Matriculation or equivalent examination only when he is declared pass. Therefore, a candidate can be said to have passed Matriculation or equivalent examination only when he is declared pass. Certainly such candidate is declared to have passed only when he takes up the Compartmental Examination and passes the same. Therefore, the marks obtained in the Compartmental Examination are necessary to be counted towards marks obtained by him in the main Examination after scoring out the marks obtained by him in the subjects in which he was declared to have failed, otherwise the primary condition of possessing Matriculation or equivalent qualification could never be fulfilled, and such candidates could never be eligible to apply for selection. Thus, in our view, counting of marks obtained in the subjects in the Compartmental Examination is necessary, after deducting the marks obtained in those subjects in the main examination in which a candidate failed. ( 7 ) IN the above mentioned facts and circumstances, we find that the impugned judgment and order passed by the Tribunal in the two Original Applications, does not suffer from any manifest error of law. Both the writ petitions are misconceived and are therefore dismissed. .