Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 600 (ORI)

P. Anand Rao v. Union of India

2007-08-02

A.K.SAMANTARAY, I.M.QUDDUSI

body2007
JUDGMENT I. M. QUDDUSI, J. : This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 16th of August, 2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No.405 of 1999 which was filed by opposite party No.5 of the instant writ petition challenging the selection of the petitioner for the post of Extra-Departmental Branch Post-master Narigam. The Tribunal quashed the selection and directed the departmental authorities to make fresh selection keeping the same confined to the persons who were under the zone of consideration in the selection in which the petitioner was selected for the post. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the post of Extra-Departmental Branch Post-master, Narigam was notified to be filled up. Both the petitioner and opposite party No.5 along with other persons applied for the same. In the selection process, the petitioner was declared as selected. Consequently, appointment order was issued in his favour on 3.10.1997 pursuant to which he joined the post on 22.10.1997. On 9.8.1999, opposite party No.5 filed the above mentioned O.A. before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack mentioning that he was a matric¬ulate and had secured 41.57% of marks in the High School Certifi¬cate Examination whereas petitioner had secured 36.14% in the H.S.C. Examination and was a Ward Member of Political Party of Narigam Gram Panchayat of Boriguma Block and had given false declaration in his application that he is not a member of any political party and thus according to the rules, he was entitled to get appointment on the basis of percentage of marks secured in the High School Certificate Examination. 3. It ws admitted that there was no reservation for the post in question and, as such, all the candidates were treated under general category. It was mentioned that opposite party No.5 had passed the Matriculation Examination compartmentally in his third attempt whereas the instant petitioner passed the matricu¬lation examination in the first attempt. The Tribunal discussed the instructions of the Director General of Posts in which it was specifically provided that from the eligible candidates, the person who has secured highest percentage of marks in HSC exami¬nation should be adjudged more meritorious but the same do not provide that while adjudging the merit, the number of chances taken by eligible candidates to pass H.S.C. Examination would be a factor for consideration. The Tribunal has also observed that in several cases it has been held by the Tribunal that the fact that a person has passed H.S.C. Examination compartmentally and another has passed H.S.C. examination in one chance on regular basis can also have no bearing because what is to be determined is the marks secured by both of them in the H.S.C. Examination and, as such, in consideration of this it was held that the selec¬tion of the petitioner in the face of candidates having higher percentage of marks cannot be sustained and the same was quashed and the departmental respondents were directed to make fresh selection after keeping it confined to the persons who were under the zone of consideration in which the petitioner was selected. 4. During course of hearing, parties were granted several opportunities to produce the circular of the Department of Posts for the purpose of taking the marks obtained in the High School Certificate Examination into consideration as it was pointed out before this Court that there is a circular of the Department of Posts that the marks obtained in the High School Certificate Examination in the first attempt shall only be taken into consid¬eration and the marks obtained in compartmental examination shall not be taken into consideration while calculating the percentage of marks in the High School Certificate Examination. No one has produced such circular before us. Therefore, we have no other way than to uphold the judgment of the learned Tribunal. However, in case such a circular comes to the notice of the parties, it would be open for them to file a review petition before this Court. However, at this stage in absence of any circular to the con¬trary,we dismiss the writ petition. There would be no order as to costs. A. K. SAMANTARAY, J. I agree. Petition dismissed.