Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 806 (ORI)

ARJUNA CHARAN OJHA v. UNION OF INDIA (UOI)

2008-09-05

I.MAHANTY, L.MOHAPATRA

body2008
JUDGMENT : L. Mohapatra, J. - The Original Application filed by the Petitioner before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack having been dismissed, this application has been filed challenging the judgment of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 616 of 1999 disposed of on 19.11.2003. 2. The Petitioner had submitted application for appointment to the post of E.D.M.C. at Badarampas Branch Office in pursuance of a notification issued on 17.4.1999. Applications were originally invited from S.T. candidates and it was stipulated that in the event, no S.T. candidate is available, the candidates from other communities, such as, OBC/SC/OC may also apply for consideration. In the final selection, the Petitioner was not selected and opposite party No. 4 was selected and appointed against the post. Challenging the said selection of opposite party No. 4, the Petitioner approached the Tribunal in the aforesaid original application. The Tribunal in the impugned judgment held that on two occasions, attempt had been made to find out suitable S.T. candidates for appointment to the said post, but no S.T. candidates being available, the selection was made from amongst OBC/SC/OC and opposite party No. 4, who was found to be most meritorious belonging to 'OC', was selected and given appointment. According to the Tribunal, there is no illegality in giving appointment to opposite party No. 4 in absence of a S.T. candidate. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner drew attention of the Court to two notifications annexed to the writ application as Annexures-1 and 2. Annexure-1 is notification dated 17.3.1999 issued by the Department of Posts, India, Office of the Sub-Divisional Inspector (P), Bhadrak Post Sub-Division, Bhadrak. In the said notification applications in prescribed proforma were invited from the intending S.T. candidates for the aforesaid post and it was stipulated that the post was meant for S.T. candidates. It was also mentioned in the notification that candidates of other community like OBC/SC/OC may apply for the post and the candidature of OBC candidates will be taken into consideration if suitable S.T. candidates are not available for the post and if suitable S.T. and O.B.C. candidates are not available then the candidates of OC and SC community will be taken into consideration. Pursuant to the said notification, though the applications were received, a suitable S.T. candidate was not available and, therefore, no appointment was made. Pursuant to the said notification, though the applications were received, a suitable S.T. candidate was not available and, therefore, no appointment was made. The second notification was issued by the very same authority on 17.4.1999 with same stipulations and pursuant to the said notification, opposite party No. 4 was selected and appointed. 4. Referring to both the notifications, it was contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the notifications specifically stipulate that in absence of any S.T. candidate, candidature of O.B.C. will be considered. Only when either S.T. or O.B.C. candidates are not available then the candidates from SC and OC can be considered. It was further contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that since the Petitioner was otherwise qualified to be appointed, his candidature as OBC candidate should have been considered first and the case of opposite party No. 4 should not have been considered at all without holding any of the OBC candidates to be disqualified for such appointment. Learned Counsel for Central Government submitted that since the S.T. candidates were not available in spite of two attempts being made, all the applications received were considered and the most meritorious person i.e. opposite party No. 4 was selected for appointment even though he belongs to 'OC' category. Opposite party No. 4 has not entered appearance in spite of service of notice. 5. The notifications under Annexures-1 and 2 clearly show that the post was meant for S.T. candidates and in absence of any S.T. candidates, candidature of OBC would be considered. Admittedly from out of applications received, it was found that there was no S.T. candidate and, therefore, in terms of the said notification, application of OBC candidates should have been considered. Had any OBC candidate not been found suitable, candidates belonging to other two communities could have been considered. The aforesaid procedure having not been adopted by the department, selection of opposite party No. 4, who belongs to OC category, was against the norms of selection laid down in Annexures-1 and 2. Merely because opposite party No. 4 had secured highest marks amongst all category of applicants he could not have been selected for appointment to the post when the notifications specifically stipulate that in absence of S.T. candidates, OBC candidates are to be considered. 6. Merely because opposite party No. 4 had secured highest marks amongst all category of applicants he could not have been selected for appointment to the post when the notifications specifically stipulate that in absence of S.T. candidates, OBC candidates are to be considered. 6. We, therefore set aside the order of the Tribunal as well as the appointment of opposite party No. 4 to the post of E.D.M.C. of the aforesaid Branch Post Office and direct the opposite parties 1 to 3 to consider the OBC candidates, who had applied for appointment to the said post and most suitable candidate from amongst the OBC candidates be appointed to the said post. 7. The writ application is disposed of accordingly. I. Mahanty, J. 8. I agree.