Dismissed

Lalan Kumar v. the Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Communication and Deptt of Post and Ors.

Jharkhand HC18 Sept 2017WPC/874/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the Central Administrative Tribunal's order dismissing an application seeking appointment as a Gramin Daak Seva Branch Post Master. The court upheld the respondents' reliance on departmental instructions to calculate merit based solely on compulsory subject marks, ignoring additional language marks.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition seeking directions for appointment was dismissed as no illegality or arbitrariness in the selection process was found.

Lalan Kumar Vs the Union of India through the… — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 874 of 2014

¶2

Lalan Kumar ….........Petitioner

¶3

Vrs.

¶4

1.The Union of India through the Secretary,

¶5

Ministry of Communication & Dept. of Post, New Delhi

¶6

2.The Chief Post Master General, Jharkhand Circle, Ranchi

¶7

3.The Superintendent of Post Offices Division, Giridih

¶8

Sunny Kumar, R/o Barkitand, Giridih ….......... Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. B. MANGALMURTI

¶10

For the Petitioner : M/sPrakash Chandra, Kamdeo Pandey, Virendra Kumar For the Respondents : Mrs. Nitu Sinha, CGC

¶11

7/18.09.2017 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

The learned Central Administrative Tribunal(CAT), Circuit Bench at Ranchi has, by the impugned order dated 18.2.2013 passed in O.A. No. 258/2010(R), rejected the original application preferred by the Applicant/ Petitioner herein seeking direction upon the Respondents to appoint him as GDSBPM, Barkitand Branch, Giridih and to further quash the order dated 2.6.2010 passed by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Giridih Division, Giridih.

¶13

Earlier in O.A. No. 221 of 2009, Applicant / Petitioner had approached the learned Tribunal alleging that despite obtaining higher marks than the selected candidate, private respondent had been appointed instead of him. Learned Tribunal disposed of the matter by directing the Respondent, Chief Post Master General, Jharkhand Circle, Ranchi to examine the matter and pass a speaking order within a stipulated period 2 months. It was also observed that selected candidate would be put to notice. Learned Tribunal refrained from expressing itself on the merits of the case. Respondents thereafter passed order dated 2.6.2010, which became the cause of action for the Applicant/ Petitioner to approach the learned Tribunal in O.A. No.258 of 2010(R).

¶14

Claim of the Applicant vis-a-vis the private Respondent relates to the appointment to the post of GDSBPM, which from the pleadings on record appears to be the post of Sub Post Master under the Gramin Daak Seva. Learned Tribunal in order to examine the case of the Applicant, examined the Mark Sheets of both the candidates and came to a definite conclusion that basis for selection was the marks obtained in the Matriculation examination excluding the marks obtained in the additional subject/ second language. This

¶15

-2-

¶16

Applicant had secured 453 marks while the private Respondent had secured 468 marks in the Matriculation examination out of 700. Applicant had secured 75 marks in the additional paper, 45 marks of which was added in the preparation of result of Matriculation, which made his aggregate to 498, while the private Respondent had secured 56 marks in the additional paper, 26 marks of which was added to his aggregate, which made the total marks as 494. This total aggregate of 498 or 494 do not have any relevance for the purposes of appointment as the Respondents had followed the direction contained departmental instruction no. DG[P] No.17-34/94 ED & Trg. dated 22.05.1996, as per which, marks secured in additional subject is to be ignored and inter se merit should be determined on the basis of marks secured in the compulsory subjects taken in the Matriculation examination. The Applicant had secured 453 marks compared to the selected candidate, who secured 464 marks in the compulsory subject out of 700 marks. Therefore, learned Tribunal did not find any illegality in the selection of the private Respondent.

¶17

Respondents have through their counter affidavit buttressed their stand through the Departmental Instruction contained at Annexure-A, which reads as under:-

¶18

“ (25) APPOINTMENT TO THE POST OF EDBPM/EDSPM ETC. ON THE BASIS OF MARKS.

¶19

Reference have been received from certain quarters seeking clarification whether the marks obtained in the second language additional subject taken in the SSC/ HIGH SCHOOL examination by the candidates may be taken into consideration for determining their interse merit for appointment as EDBPM etc.

¶20

2.it is hereby clarified that the marks secured in the additional subject/ second language should be ignored and the interse merit should be determined on the basis of marks secured in the compulsory / elective subject taken in the matriculation examination. [Authy:DG(P) No.17-34/96-ED & Trg Dated 22.5.1996]”

¶21

This circular has been questioned by learned counsel for the petitioner stating that it does not apply to the case of GDSBPM rather it applies to EDBPM/EDSPM. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however not been able to show any other rule or circular on the subject, which takes a different view in the matter of selection to the post of GDSBPM. Learned counsel for the Applicant/ Petitioner has relied upon information provided under RTI contained at Annexure-8 to the rejoinder dated 19.3.2008 where under the qualification prescribed for being appointed to the post of Branch Post Master required minimum educational qualification of Matriculation or its equivalent only and no weightage to the higher educational qualification. The instant

¶22

-3-

¶23

clause 2 of the letter dated 19.3.2008 however does not contain further guidelines in relation to preparation of select list for appointment to the post of GDSBPM. In case the advertisement or the notice inviting application is silent on the details of the manner and procedure laid down for such selection process, the Recruitment authorities are always entitled to fall back upon the rules / written instructions / circulars on that subject. Learned counsel for the applicant has further relied upon the information at Annexure-3 dated 27.2.2009, which again does not dislodge the stand of the Respondents.

¶24

On totality of facts and circumstances of the matter, we do not find that the Applicant has been able to successfully assail the impugned decision of the Respondents or show any illegality in the order passed by the learned Tribunal. The writ petition is therefore dismissed.

¶25

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)

¶26

(B.B.Mangalmurti, J.)

¶27

A.Mohanty

Lalan Kumar v. the Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Communication and Deptt of Post and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalan Kumar v. the Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Communication and Deptt of Post and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Jharkhand Senior Citizen Advocates Service Sansthan Jharkhand High Court Ranchi Vs Chief Secretory

Hasina Ansari Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Nagar Panchayat Basukinath Through Its Chairman Mantu Kumar Laha Vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The Chief Secretary And Ors.

Satya Narayan Mahato Vs Smt Ambika Mahato

M/S Mishra and Mishra Thr.Its Prop.Manoj Kumar Mis Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Court On Its Own Motion Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Others