High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Union Of India Through Sr. Supdt. Of Post Offices, Gorakhpur v. Onkar Chand - WRIT - A No. 26524 of 2001  RD-AH 8108 (20 April 2006)
Court No. 37
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26524 of 2001
The Union of India through Senior Superintendent of Post Offices
Shri Onkar Chand
Hon.Sanjay Misra J.
This writ petition is directed against the order dated 22.5.2001 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Allahabad Bench Allahabad in Original Application No. 1029 of 1999 ( Onkar Chand Versus Union of India and others). An advertisement was issued by the petitioner for appointment on newly created post of Extra Departmental Branch Post Master at Branch Post Office Singha Kauri Ram Gorakhpur . Requisition was sent to the Employment Exchange Gorakhpur for sponsoring the name of suitable candidate . It was stipulated in the said requisition that preference will be given to scheduled caste candidates. In response the Employment Exchange Gorakhpur sponsored the name of five candidates none of whom belonged to the schedule castes. However, one Kamlesh Prasad a scheduled caste candidate duly registered in the Employment Exchange applied for being appointed. He also filed an Original Application No. 152 of 1997 before the Central Administrative Tribunal Allahabad Bench Allahabad where it was ordered that candidature of Kamlesh Prasad should also be considered. While considering the name of all aforesaid candidates, Kamlesh Prasad was not found suitable. Two candidates did not respond to the registered letters sent to them. Application of one candidate did not contain any evidence regarding landed property and income certificate, hence he was not considered. The respondent no.1 and Smt. Satyabhama Singh were left whereupon the respondent no.1 was selected to be appointed and was given appointment letter dated 29.4.1998. However, by order dated 27.8.1999 the services of the respondent no.1 were terminated in exercise of powers under section 6 B of the Extra Departmental Agents Conduct and Service Rules 1964. Reading of the aforesaid order indicates that services of the respondent no.4 were terminated by giving one month's notice and pay in lieu thereof . Feeling aggrieved against the said termination order, the respondent no. 1 filed Original Application No. 1029 of 1999 before the Central Administrative Tribunal Allahabad Bench Allahabad on various grounds.
A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.1 wherein it has been stated that aforesaid Kamlesh Prasad filed a complaint before the Post Master General Gorakhpur whereupon the said Post Master General Gorakhpur has reviewed the entire selection and directed for passing the order of termination against the petitioner . It is contended that there was no irregularity in the selection and the respondent no.1 was selected on his merits. It is stated that the order of termination has been passed at the dictates of higher authorities and therefore, is liable to be set aside.
In the rejoinder affidavit the petitioner has denied the averments in the counter affidavit but the fact that the advertisement mentioned that preference will be given to the scheduled caste candidates is accepted and also that no scheduled caste candidate was sponsored by the Employment Exchange. It is however, stated that since the respondent no.1 did not belong to the scheduled caste therefore, he was not entitled to be selected. When the aforesaid fact of the respondent no.1 not being a scheduled caste came to the notice of the higher authorities, the services of the respondent no.1 were terminated. It has also been stated that the respondent no.1 and Smt. Satyabhama Singh were husband and wife. They had made application separately for the same post by giving wrong address. However, the order of termination has been defended on the ground that appointment being purely temporary could be terminated by giving notice or one month's salary in lieu thereof therefore, no error can be found in the order of termination. Judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal has been challenged on the aforesaid grounds.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal has found that objection taken by the respondents therein regarding making of application separately by husband and wife for the same post does not suffer from any illegality in as much as there is no provision prohibiting such persons from making application for appointment on the said post. The objection that the order of termination was passed since there was short fall in scheduled caste candidate in the recruitment unit has also been dealt with by the Central Administrative Tribunal wherein it has recorded that notification issued for inviting applications for the post did not contemplate that it was for the reserved category. Only mention in the requisition was that candidates belonging to the schedule caste will be given preference . It found that one scheduled caste candidate was considered and he was not found fit consequently since the advertisement itself did not contemplate for reservation of the post for scheduled caste candidate therefore, the order of termination on the said ground was illegal. The Tribunal has proceeded to record that the order of termination clearly indicates at item no.5 that same has been passed in response to the Post Master General's letter dated 20.8.1999, therefore, relying upon the decision of a Full Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal it was held that such an order cannot be sustained . In the counter affidavit filed before this court, the respondent has annexed a copy of the counter affidavit filed by the petitioners before the Central Administrative Tribunal wherein in paragraph 8 it has been clearly stated that order dated 20.8.1999 was passed by the higher authority under Rule 6 of the Extra Departmental Agents Conduct and Service Rules 1964, in paragraph 14 and 21 it has been stated that higher authority has reviewed the matter and found that the petitioner was not fulfilling the requisite conditions. On the aforesaid averments made before it the Tribunal has found that the order of termination is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside. Consequently direction has been given by the Administrative Tribunal. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that subsequent requisition dated 4/8-8-2000 with respect to the same post provided that preference will be given to scheduled caste candidate and = rejecting the scheduled caste candidate was not in accordance with law, therefore, the higher authority was right in reviewing the matter and terminated the services of the respondent no.1
From the aforesaid it is seen that Tribunal while considering the three arguments made on behalf of the petitioner has repelled the same on cogent reasons . Firstly that there is no bar for husband and wife for applying for the same post. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show to this Court any provision whereby such application by two persons related to each other is barred. The ground regarding short fall in scheduled caste candidate in the recruiting unit as being a reason for terminating the services after appointment of Respondent no.1 has no merit since the advertisement itself only contemplated that preference will be given to scheduled caste candidate. There was only one scheduled caste candidate, his application was considered but having been found unfit he was not selected. On the question that the order of termination was passed on the basis of direction of higher authority, the Tribunal has found that same could not have been done in law . Learned counsel could not point out any illegality in the said finding and therefore, no error can be found to such findings..
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Brij Mohan Singh Vs. Union of India and others reported in 2002 SCC (L&S) 1118 and has contended that Rule 6 of the Rules of 1964 authorises the employer to terminate the services at any time by notice in writing therefore, since the respondent no.1 had not completed more than three years of continuous service hence exercise of power under Rule 6 was in no way erroneous. In the case referred it was held that in view of the gross irregularities and illegalities committed for securing appointment, the appointee therein cannot claim any right to the post. Rule 6 of the said Rules empowers the appointing authority to exercise its power emanating there from and there can be no dispute with respect to such power of the appointing authority. It cannot also be disputed that where appointment has been secured by gross irregularities and illegalities ,the incumbent cannot claim any right to the post.
In the present case order under Rule 6 has been passed by the appointing authority but the pleadings and facts of this case clearly indicate that the appointing authority has passed the order in response to the order of the higher authority. The higher authority has reviewed the selection and appointing authority has passed the termination order as a consequence thereof. Record of this case also indicates that higher authority has reviewed the selection but no such order has been brought on record to show as to what irregularity or illegality was committed in the selection. The power under Rule 6 is to be exercised by the appointing authority himself and not on the basis of decision of the higher authority who has no such power of terminating the services particularly when no appeal is provided against an order passed under Rule 6.. The petitoner has tried to justify the order of termination by reasons disclosed before the Tribunal and in the writ petition by way of affidavit. Such reasons have been dealt with by the Tribunal and no error can be found in the findings recorded by the Tribunal. From the above discussions it is found that no grounds have been made out to justify the passing of the termination order nor any error has been shown in the impugned order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The writ petition has no force and is therefore, dismissed. No order is passed as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.