Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 650 (PAT)

Pranav Kumar Sinha v. Union of India

2006-07-27

AFTAB ALAM, S.K.KATRIAR

body2006
ORDER : Heard Mr. Gajendra Kumar Jha, counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sarvadeo Singh, Addl. Central Govt. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The matter relates to the appointment of Extra Departmental Branch Post Master (E.D.B.P.M.) of Utarnama E.D.B.P.O. The process started with an advertisement issued on 5.5.1998. In response to that advertisement the Employment Exchange forwarded the names of both the petitioner and respondent no. 5 to the departmental authorities. The petitioner was selected for appointment though respondent no. 5 had higher marks in the matriculation examination. Respondent NO.5 made a representation before the Director of Postal Services, Bihar Circle, Patna to review the selection process 'and to cancel the appointment of the petitioner and to direct for his appointment to the post. 3. It appears that even while the matter was pending before the departmental authorities, respondent no. 5 came before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench in OA No. 633 of 1998 seeking the same relief(s). While the matter was pending before the Tribunal, the Director, Postal Services passed an ORDER :canceling the appointment of the petitioner and directing for fresh appointment on the basis of another advertisement. 4. Following the ORDER :of the Director, Postal Services, a second advertisement was issued on 10.2.1999. The petitioner challenged the ORDER :canceling his appointment before the Tribunal in O.A. No. 62 of 1999 and sought an interim ORDER :of stay against any fresh selection process for appointment to the post. He failed to get an interim ORDER :and though O.A. No. 62 of 1999 remained pending before the Tribunal, the departmental authorities proceeded with the selection process and issued the second advertisement on 10.2.1999. Notwithstanding the pendency of his application before the Tribunal, the petitioner took part in the selection process. It is not clear whether respondent no. 5 was similarly a candidate in the second selection process. The petitioner was once again selected by the departmental authorities following which he withdrew O.A. No. 62 of 1999 pending before the Tribunal and was appointed to the post on 24.3.1999. 5. In the other O.A. No. 633 of 1999 (from which the present writ petition arises), respondent no. 5 (the applicant in the O.A.) also filed a misc. The petitioner was once again selected by the departmental authorities following which he withdrew O.A. No. 62 of 1999 pending before the Tribunal and was appointed to the post on 24.3.1999. 5. In the other O.A. No. 633 of 1999 (from which the present writ petition arises), respondent no. 5 (the applicant in the O.A.) also filed a misc. application seeking a direction to restrain the departmental authorities from making any appointment on the basis of• the second advertisement issued in pursuance of the ORDER :of the Director, Postal Services. On the misc. application filed by respondent no. 5, the Tribunal passed an ORDER :on 28.5.99 leaving it open to the departmental authorities to proceed with the selection process but directing them not to make any appointment on that basis till the disposal of that case (OA No. 633 of 1999)., 6. As noted above the second selection process was over long before the ORDER :was passed by the Tribunal on the misc. application and on that basis the petitioner had already been appointed on 24.3.1999 after withdrawal of his O.A. from the Tribunal. 7. From the ORDER :of the Tribunal coming under challenge it appears that at the time of passing the ORDER :on the misc. application (28.5.1999) though the official respondents were not present, the petitioner (being respondent no. 5 in that misc. application) was duly represented before the Tribunal through its lawyer. It, therefore, appears highly curious to us that the Tribunal was not informed that the matter in the misc. application had become infructuous since the second selection process was already over and the petitioner had already been appointed on that basis. 8: Be that as it may, when OA No. 633 of 1998 came up for final hearing much emphasis was laid on behalf of respondent no. 5 (applicant before the Tribunal) on the fact that the petitioner was appointed to the post contrary to the interim ORDER :passed by the Tribunal on 28.5.98 and this fact seems to have carried considerable weight with the Tribunal. By the impugned ORDER :the Tribunal set aside the appointment of the petitioner on the basis of the second selection process and directed the departmental authorities to make appointment by issuing an advertisement. / 9. Mr. By the impugned ORDER :the Tribunal set aside the appointment of the petitioner on the basis of the second selection process and directed the departmental authorities to make appointment by issuing an advertisement. / 9. Mr. Gajendra Kumar Jha argued with considerable force that the Tribunal was in error in finding fault with the second selection process on the ground that it violated the interim ORDER :passed by it on 28.5.1999 for the simple reason that the selection process and the petitioner's appointment on that basis was made earlier to the passing of the ORDER :. The submission of Mr. Jha is not entirely without substance. Nevertheless, we feel quite disinclined to interfere in this matter. This is for the reason that on the basis of the Tribunal's direction the departmental authorities held yet another selection process in which another person was duly selected and appointed to the post. All this happened during the pendency of this matter before the court. 10. On hearing counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record we find that the selection process for appointment to the post of Extra Departmental Branch Post Master of Utarnawa E.D.B.P.O. has already been subject of much controversy and any further interference would only make the matter murkier and would unsettle rights that are accrued in favour of a person not before the court. Another reason that refrains us from interfering in the matter is that there is absolutely no complaint or grievance against the third selection process on the basis of which another person was appointed to the post. 11. This writ petition is dismissed.