A writ petition challenging the termination of the petitioner's appointment as Gramin Dak Sevak was dismissed. The High Court held that the termination was valid simplicitor
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2003 of 2017
===========================================================
Ranjan Kumar Sah S/o Sri Raj Deo Sah resident of Village & P.O. - Sirisia, Via - Sahpur, District - Siwan.
.... .... Petitioner/s
.... .... Respondent/s
=========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Hemant Kumar Karn, Advocate Mr. Jayant Kumar Karn, Advocate Mr. Sujeet Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. S.D. Sanjay, Addl. Solicitor, General Mr. Rajesh Kumar Verma, CGC
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI and HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI) Date: 04-05-2017
Since the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna dismissed O.A. No. 498 of 2016 on 19th December, 2016, which was filed by the present petitioner, and the removal of the petitioner in exercise of power under Rule 8 of the Gramin Dak Seva (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011 was not interfered with, the present writ application has been preferred.
The appointment of the petitioner on the post of Gramin Dak Sevak/MC became a subject matter of controversy because the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2003 of 2017 dt.04-05-2017
2/4
Appointing Authority did not follow the procedure and maintain fairness in selection. The details of the same has been dealt with in the order of the Tribunal. The superior authorities on examination of the matter did reach the conclusion that a fair procedure was not followed in the selection and appointment and, therefore, since the petitioner was still under probation, which is for a period of three years, the power under Rule 8, which is similar to Central Government Temporary Service Conditions Rules, was invoked. Such termination simplicitor was without any stigma. However, argument was made before the Tribunal that no proper procedure was followed, which has
been negated by the Tribunal in following words:
“5[f] This Tribunal has considered it necessary to quote extensively the finding and grounds recorded in the impugned order at Annexure A/10 since they clearly speak for themselves and leave no room for doubt that, indeed, the appointment process, which resulted in the appointment of the applicant, was replete with irregularities, procedural violations and was also patently unjustifiable. That being the case, there was every justification for the respondents to cancel the appointment on discovery of these glaring irregularities. It is also amply clear to this Tribunal that the beneficiary of this grossly irregular and flawed process of
Patna High Court CWJC No.2003 of 2017 dt.04-05-2017
3/4
appointment i.e. the applicant, cannot claim to have acquired either any legally enforceable right; nor have any rights vested him merely because an order of appointment was issued to him by a sleight of hand.
The Court would also like to note that similar matter had also come before this Court for consideration and vide a detailed order dated 24.04.2017 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2938 of 2017, the Court had upheld the decision of termination simplicitor to be valid and refused to interfere with the order of the Tribunal.
The present case being no different, even the rationale and reasoning, which was provided for in the said writ application, also
Patna High Court CWJC No.2003 of 2017 dt.04-05-2017
4/4
applies to the present writ as well.
The writ has no merit. It is dismissed.
(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)
(Nilu Agrawal, J.)
Arjun/-
AFR/NAFR NAFT CAV DATE NA Uploading Date09.05.2017 Transmission NA Date
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the termination of the petitioner's appointment as Gramin Dak Sevak by invoking Rule 8 of the Gramin Dak Seva Rules has merit.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna BenchReferred¶13
O.A. No. 498 of 2016
detailed order dated 24.04.2017Referred¶24
C.W.J.C. No. 2938 of 2017
Ranjan Kumar Sah S/o Sri Raj Deo Sah
The Union of India
Ajay Kumar Tripathi
Nilu Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
