Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 595 (ORI)

Purna Chandra Dash v. Union of India

2017-05-17

SANJU PANDA, SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2017
JUDGMENT : S. N. Prasad, J. 1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is against the order passed in O.A.No.344 of 1995 under Annexure-10 whereby and where under the Tribunal has refused to interfere with the appointment of the respondent no.6 before the Tribunal. 2. Brief facts of the case is that the applicant/petitioner has made an application for the post of Extra Departmental Branch Post Master (EDBPM), Chandka Post Office which arose due to superannuation of regular incumbent on 15.6.1993, 23 names have been sponsored including the name of the applicant. Name of Prakash Chandra Dash, respondent no.6 before the Tribunal was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The authorities have selected the respondent no.6, his selection and appointment has been assailed by the petitioner before the Tribunal which has been refused to be interfered with vide order passed by the Tribunal which is impugned in this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the Union of India has submitted that the Tribunal has passed exhaustive order by approving appointment of the respondent no.6 on the ground that he has been considered meritorious in comparison of assessment of merit but so far as allegation leveled by the petitioner wherein it has been alleged that respondent no.2 made demand from him for his selection and as such the Tribunal has directed the respondent no.2,Chief Post Master General, Orissa, Bhubaneswar to conduct inquiry in this regard. He further submits that since the Tribunal has refused to interfere with the candidature of the respondent no.6 since he has got appointment on merit, hence there is no illegality in the same. 4. We have heard Mr. S.K.Das, learned counsel for the Union of India. None appeared on behalf of the petitioner, we on the basis of the averments made in the writ petition as well as the counter affidavit have decided to dispose of the matter finally taking into consideration that the writ petition is of the year 2000. 5. We, after going through the order passed by the Tribunal, has come across with the fact that the selecting body has evaluated the marks of one or the other candidates and in view thereof the Respondent no.6 is found to be more meritorious having secured higher marks, as such he has been selected, his selection having been questioned by the applicant which the Tribunal has said proper. We are of the considered view that in the selection process if candidature of candidates has been assessed on the basis of the merit of the respective candidates and in course thereof if any candidate is being selected, his candidature cannot be questioned. However, the petitioner has made allegation against the respondent no.2 that illegal demand has been made from him, on that ground the entire selection cannot be vitiated. The Tribunal, after taking note of the merit of the one or the other candidates has approved appointment of the respondent no.6 before the Tribunal, however directed the respondent no.2, Chief Post Master General,Orissa, Bhubaneswar to conduct enquiry regarding the allegation of illegal demand. 6 Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the order of the Tribunal does not warrant any interference. 7. In the result, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A.No.344 of 1995, hence the writ petition is dismissed.