Dismissed

Himan Kumar Nath v. the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC17 Dec 2019WP(C)/1945/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the appointment of the respondent No.5 for the post of Gramin Dak Sevak at Mangalanagar, alleging that the petitioner, a local resident, was wrongly excluded. The court held that permanent residence is not a pre-condition for selection; candidates must only shift residence after appointment, thus dismissing the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Himan Kumar Nath Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors. — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010008322014

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

¶5

1:HIMAN KUMAR NATH

¶6

S/O LT. MONESWAR NATH R/O MANGALNAGAR, UPAHUPARA P.O. and P.S. MANGALDOI DIST. DARRANG, ASSAM, PIN- 784125.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE UNION OF INDIA and 4 ORS

¶9

REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS,DAK BHAWAN, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI- 110001.

¶10

2:THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL ASSAM CIRCLE MAGHDOOT BHAWAN GUWAHATI- 781001.

¶11

3:THE POST MASTER GENERAL DIBRUGARH REGION DIBRUGARH- 786001.

¶12

4:THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT POST OFFICERS DARRANG DIVISION TEZPUR- 784001.

¶13

5:MD. AKHTAR HUSSAIN

¶14

R/O VILL- BHAKATPARA P.O. and P.S. DHULA DIST. DARRANG ASSAM PIN- 78412

¶15

Advocate for the Petitioner : MSB DEVI

¶16

Advocate for the Respondent : MR.P NAYAKR-5

¶17

Page No.# 2/5

¶18

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

¶19

Date : 17-12-2019

¶20

JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

¶21

Heard Mr. R Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. KC Kalita, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 4, Mr. A Phukan, learned counsel for respondent No.5 and Ms. A Agarwal, learned counsel for the Union of India.

¶22

By a Notification dated 17.05.2013 of the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Darrang Division, applications in the enclosed proforma were invited, amongst others for the post of Gramin Dak Sevak (Branch Postmaster) (for short, GDS-BPM) of Mangalanagar.

¶23

The petitioner offered his candidature pursuant to such employment notice and participated in the selection process. But the resultant appointment was made in favour of the respondent No.5 and being aggrieved the present writ petition is preferred.

¶24

Mr. R Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner raises the contention that the petitioner is a resident of the concerned village namely, Mangalanagar, whereas the respondent No.5 is a resident of some other village and not Mangalanagar and, therefore, the appointment ought to have been made in favour of the petitioner. No other ground has been urged upon to assail the appointment made in favour of the respondent No.5.

¶25

In the affidavit-in-opposition in paragraphs 9 and 10, the following stand had been taken by the respondents No.1 to 4 which is extracted hereinbelow:

¶26

“9. That, the deponent begs to state that the terms and condition of engagement as mentioned in the Notification dated 17.05.2013 regarding minimum educational qualification has been mentioned as under:

¶27

“9(ii) Minimum Educational Qualification: HSLC/10^th Standard Passed. No weightage is given for

¶28

Page No.# 3/5

¶29

higher qualification. However, this does not bar the candidate with higher qualification for applying for the post.”

¶30

Moreover, the Government of India, Ministry of Communication, Department of Posts vide Letter No.22-12/2001-GDS dated 17.09.2003 communicated the decision of the Postal Services Board, wherein it had been inter-alia stated that the sole criteria for selection to the posts of all categories of GDSs will henceforth be the merit subject to orders on reservation and fulfilling other eligible conditions like providing of space for BO, taking up residence in the BO village before appointment, etc. Therefore, considering the higher percentage of marks obtained by the respondent No.5 in HSLC examination, he was provisionally selected for the post.

¶31

That, the dependent begs to state that the terms and condition of engagement as mentioned in the Notification dated 17.05.2013 regarding residence has been mentioned as under:

¶32

“9(iii). Residence: Candidates should be the resident of the post village. However, candidate belonging to places other than the post village can also apply for the post and such candidate should shift the residence to PO village in the event of his/her selection. The selected candidate should produce a proof to that effect within the date prescribed by the undersigned, after selection.”

¶33

Further, as per Letter No.Est/28-6/85 (C) dated 27.12.1993 issued from the Office of the Postmaster General, Assam Circle Guwahati, it has been inter-alia communicated that the Postal Services Board has decided to clarify that while making selections for appointment to ED posts, permanent residence in the village/delivery jurisdiction of the ED Post Office need not be insisted upon as a pre-condition for appointment. However, it should be laid down as a condition of appointment that any candidate, who is selected, must before appointment to the post take up his residence in the village/delivery jurisdiction of the ED Post Office as the case may be.

¶34

Hence, it is abundantly clear that there arose no occasion for any preference or priority to be given to the local candidates of Mangaldoi Mangalanagar, as alleged by the petitioner.”

¶35

In response to the stand of the respondents No.1 to 4 in their affidavit-in-opposition, the writ petitioner in his affidavit-in-reply in paragraph 7 stated as under:

¶36

“7. That as regards to the statements made in paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 of the affidavit-inopposition, this deponent disputes the correctness of the same and begs to state that the official respondent most illegally and arbitrary manner selected the respondent No.5, thus such appointment is liable to be cancelled and the deponent be appointed at Mangalnagar Branch Post Office, as he

¶37

Page No.# 4/5

¶38

belongs to the same village.”

¶39

From the stand of the respondents No.1 to 4 in their affidavit-in-opposition, it is firstly noticed that as per the Letter No.22-12/2001-GDS dated 17.09.2003 of the Government of India, Ministry of Communication, Department of Posts, the sole criteria for selection to the posts of GDS would henceforth be on the basis of merit, subject to the application of the relevant reservation law, if applicable.

¶40

In order to determine the inter-se merit, the respondents have taken the stand that they have taken the marks obtained in the matriculation examination to be the basis, which infact is also the required qualification under the prevailing rules. It is stated that accordingly the petitioner was found to have obtained 36.4% marks whereas the respondent No.5 secured 47.33 marks and, therefore, the respondent No.5 was evaluated to be more deserving on merit.

¶41

But, as the sole ground urged upon is that the respondent No.5 is not a resident of the village concerned and, therefore, ineligible to be appointed, we, accordingly, adjudicate the ground urged upon.

¶42

As regards, the question of being a resident of the concerned village, reference was made to Clause 9(iii) of the Notification dated 17.05.2013 which provides that although a candidate should be a resident of the village where the post office is located but persons belonging to other villages can also apply for the post, but such candidates should shift their residence to the village concerned in the event of his/her selection.

¶43

Further Letter No.Est/28-6/85 (C) dated 27.12.1993 of the Post Master General Assam Circle, Guwahati also clarifies that the permanent residence of the concerned village need not be insisted upon as a pre-condition for appointment but, however, a candidate upon being appointed must shift his/her residence to the village where the post office is located. In view of the aforesaid provisions and clarifications, we find the sole contention of the petitioner that the petitioner being a resident of the village Mangalanagar ought to have been appointed in place of the respondent No.5 who is

¶44

Page No.# 5/5

¶45

otherwise a resident of some other village is found to be unacceptable. Even, in the affidavit-in-reply, the petitioner has failed to take any definite stand requiring the Court to take any other view on the aspect of the requirement of being a resident of the village concerned.

¶46

In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same stands dismissed.

¶47

JUDGE

¶48

Comparing Assistant

Himan Kumar Nath v. the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Himan Kumar Nath v. the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Babita Singha Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Smt. Uma Das Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Md. Jakir Hussain and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Jubat Kumar Kalita Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Smti. Nayanmoni Hazarika and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Dilip Kumar Nath and 7 Ors. Vs Mohan Chandra Boro and Anr.