ORDER
1. The appellant and respondent No. 6 before us applied to the post of extra departmental branch post master (for short ‘EDBPM’).
2. Pursuant to a selection made, respondent No. 4 appointed respondent No. 6 as EDBPM. Against that appointment, the appellant filed an application before the central administrative tribunal, Calcutta bench (hereinafter referred to as the ‘tribunal’) contending that his case has been arbitrarily ignored and a lesser qualified person has been selected and sought for appropriate reliefs.
3. Before the tribunal, the department took the stand that the appellant could not be appointed to the post of EDBPM inasmuch as he is disqualified from holding the post on the ground that a near relative of his was working in the same post office. The appellant filed an affidavit to the effect that one Abhilash Ch. Barman, EDDA, Amberia post office belongs to the same clan but he is not in his near relation. The tribunal noticed the decision of this Court in Baliram Prasad v. Union of India & Ors. [JT 1996 (11) SC 236] and held that the ground upon which the department did not consider the case of the appellant was not correct and such a ground was not available to it at all.
4. The tribunal, proceeding further, examined the comparative merits of the appellant and respondent No. 6 and held that the appellant had secured more marks in the matriculation examination while respondent No. 6 had secured lesser marks and on that basis held that the appellant is more meritorious than respondent No. 6 and allowed the application filed by the appellant by setting aside the appointment of respondent No. 6 and directed appointment of the appellant.
5. Against that order a writ petition was preferred before the High Court. The High Court noticed that there was no service of notice in the proceeding before the tribunal upon respondent No. 6. Further, the High Court noticed that when the selection committee had applied its mind as to who was more meritorious, the tribunal should not have sat in judgment over the selection committee to hold that appellant was more meritorious than respondent No. 6 and give relief to him and, therefore, held that the tribunal was not justified in making the order it did and allowed the writ petition. Hence, this appeal by special leave.
6. Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant strongly contended that the High Court ought not to have interfered with the order of the tribunal. Firstly, so far as the question of notice is concerned, he submitted that there is presumption of regularity of proceedings of any authority, more so in the case of the tribunal and there was sufficient material on record to show that notice had been served upon respondent No. 6 and secondly, merely on assertion and denial of the same, the High Court had proceeded to hold that respondent No. 6 had not been served and that approach of the High Court was plainly improper. We need not deal with trial aspect of the matter as we proceed to decide the matter on another aspect.
7. The High Court stated that the tribunal ought not to have entered upon the question of comparative merits of the parties when the selection committee had itself considered as to who was more meritorious. The stand of the appellant is that he had secured 355 marks but it is clear from the perusal of the marks sheet that he had secured such marks in second attempt and not in first attempt. Whether this aspect had gone into the mind of the selection committee in selecting respondent No. 6 believing him to be more meritorious than appellant is not very clear to us. In the circumstances, the department ought to have placed necessary material before the tribunal to show the manner in which the selection committee proceeded to find out as to who was more meritorious. In the absence of such material, the tribunal could not have come to the conclusion that the appellant was more meritorious than respondent No. 6.
8. In the circumstances, the High Court is justified in holding that the tribunal ought not to have entered into the question of comparative merits of the appellant and respondent No. 6. In that view of the matter, we dismiss this appeal.