Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 147 (RAJ)

Satya Narain Verma v. U. O. I.

2006-01-13

K.C.SHARMA, Y.R.MEENA

body2006
Judgment 1. A post of Extra Departmental Branch Post Master at Gudha, Devji (Dei), District Bundi was advertised in the year 1998. Interviews of the candidates were held on 11.01.1999 and after interview, petitioner was selected on that post and he joined on the post on 05.04.1999. The qualifications required for selection on the aforesaid post were that the candidate should be (1) matriculate; (2) between the age of 18 to 65 years; (3) permanent resident of the place, (4) should have possessed permanent property (house/agricultural land); (5) other source of income; etc. 2. The case of the appellant is that respondent Miss. Shakuntala Sharma could not produced certificate of her income as well as the documents regarding the property she was holding, therefore, the petitioner was given appointment on the said post though he was less meritorious. The respondent Shankuntala Sharma challenged the appointment of the appellant on the aforesaid post before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur by filing original application. The Tribunal vide impugned order dated 10.01.2001 allowed the original application of Respondent No. 3 and directed the respondents therein to afford opportunity to the applicant (Respondent No. 3 herein) for producing the documents pertaining to her eligibility on the post of EDP. 3. Mr. S.C. Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner was selected in the year 1999 and since then he is working on the post. Mr. Gupta further submits that when the required documents were not produced by Respondent No. 3 at the time of interview, she cannot be permitted to submit those documents in 2001. 4. Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 3 placing reliance on the order of this Court dated 20.02.2004 passed in the D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 910/2004, submitted that the documents regarding income and property are not required to be produced at the time of interview and they can be produced after the interview. 5. The facts are not in dispute that the interview took place on 11.01.1999 and at the time the respondent could not produce the income certificate as well the documents relating to the property owned by her. 6. 5. The facts are not in dispute that the interview took place on 11.01.1999 and at the time the respondent could not produce the income certificate as well the documents relating to the property owned by her. 6. It is true that income certificate as well as the documents relating to the property owned by a candidate could be produced even after the interview within a reasonable time but a bare perusal of the copies of the income certificate and the documents relating to the property owned by the respondent it is clear that the income certificate has been issued in the year 2000 and the property has been purchased by her in the year 2001 i.e., after three years from the date of interview. It is true that the documents relating to property are not required to be produced at the time of interview but the property should be purchased prior to the date of interview and the documents should be produced within a reasonable time after interview but that is not in the case in hand. Neither the property was in the name of Respondent No. 3 at the time of interview nor the certificate of income was prior to the date of interview. Therefore, the property which has been purchased by the Respondent No. 3 in the year 2001 cannot be taken into consideration for the interview for the post in question which was held in the year 1999. 7. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has committed error in directing the respondent department to give opportunity to Respondent No. 3 herein for producing the documents and to consider her case. 8. For the discussions hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 10.01.2001 is quashed and set aside.