ORDER
P. Lakshmana Reddy, J. (Vice Chairman)
1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned standing counsel for the respondents.
2. The relevant facts in brief are as follows:
The applicant applied for EDBPM (Extra Departmental Branch Post Master) post at Gokarnapally village in pursuance of the notification dated 08.12.2001. The said post was reserved for SC community but as none appeared from either SC/ST 17 OBC applications were considered. The present applicant is one among the OBC candidates who applied for the said post. The procedure for selection was only on the basis of the documents produced by the applicant. On 20.02.2004 the documents were verified. As per the marks obtained in the SSC examination the applicant got highest marks viz. 319 among all the 17 applicants. Second respondent herein i.e. unofficial respondent got 299 marks in SSC. After verification of the documents the respondents selected R-2. Aggrieved of the selection of R-2 the applicant herein filed present application contending that he got more marks then R-2, instead of selecting him the respondents selected R-2 and the respondents ought to have selected him. He sought for setting aside the said selection by declaring it as arbitrary, illegal and unjust and also sought a direction to the respondents to select the applicant for the post of EDBPM, Gokarnapally village. He further submitted in the application that he was not considered for appointment on the sole ground that he was serving as MPTC which is an elected post, though on 15.04.2003 itself he made a statement to the effect that he would resign for the MPTC post if he is selected as EDBPM.
3. The respondents have filed a reply admitting the facts but contending that as per the notification no person holding an elective office could be considered for appointment to the post of BPM and in the statement made by the applicant himself before the Inspector of Posts it is stated that he has been elected as MPTC and serving as such and therefore the respondents could not consider the applicant’s name for appointment though he secured more marks in SSC among all the OBC candidates whose documents were verified on 20.04.2002.
4. During the course of hearing learned Counsel for the applicant reiterated the contentions raised in the application. He contended that the applicant categorically made a statement on 15.04.2002 itself that he will resign for the post of MPTC. Therefore, the respondents ought to have selected him as BPM instead of selecting R-2 who got less marks. On the other hand learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that in the application submitted by the applicant he did not mention that he has been serving as MPTC which is an elected post. During the enquiry on 15.04.2002 it came to light that the applicant is holding the elective office. As per Rule 18 of GDS (Conduct and Service) Rules 1964 no person holding an elective office shall be appointed as ED Agent and that infact in the notification itself it is clearly mentioned that no person holding the elective office will be considered for the appointment to the post of EDBPM. Hence there is no irregularity or illegality in not considering the applicant for appointment to the post of EDBPM. There are no merits in the application and it is liable to be dismissed.
5. The point that arose for our consideration in this application is whether the impugned order of selection of R-2 as EDBPM is not sustainable in law and whether the applicant is entitled to be selected and appointed to the post of EDBPM, Gokanapally?
6. We have perused the entire record and also the notification dated 08.12.2001 issued inviting the eligible candidates for selection to the post of EDBPM, Gokarnapally village. As seen from para-3(viii) of the notification it is specifically mentioned that no person holding an elective office will be considered for appointment to the post. From this clause in the notification it is clear that those who are holding the elective office are not entitled to apply for the post and even if such people applied those applications will not be considered for appointment to the post. If at all anybody holding an elective office intends to apply for the said post they have to resign and then apply for the said post. Merely because the applicant is prepared to resign the post and he made such statement before the postal authorities it cannot be said that the respondents can consider the applicant for appointment. Clause 3(viii) of the notification which is supported by the above quoted rule the respondents are barred from considering such candidate who is holding an elective office applied for appointment to the post of EDBPM. Hence we find considerable force on the contention raised on behalf of the respondents and we are unable to accept the contentions raised by the applicant.
7. Hence we find no merit in the application and the application is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.