IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 30/06/2003
Coram
The Honourable Mr.Justice V.S.SIRPURKAR
and
The Honourable Mr.Justice M.THANIKACHALAM
Writ Petition No. 19359 of 1999
and
W.P.M.P.No. 28388 of 1999
1. Union of India
rep. by the Post Master General
Central Region
Tiruchirappalli 620 001.
2. Superintendent of Post Offices
Karur Postal Division
Karur - 639 001. .. Petitioners
-Vs-
1. Central Administrative Tribunal
rep. by its Registrar
High Court Campus,
Chennai 600 104.
2. R.Kadhirvel
Ex.Branch Postmaster
Ariyur Village & Post
K.Parmathy - 639 111. .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari as stated therein.
!For Petitioners .. Mr.R.Santhanam
Senior Central Govt.
Standing Counsel
^For Respondent2 .. Mr.O.Venkatachalam
:O R D E R
(The Order of the Court was made by V.S.SIRPURKAR,J)
It is again an unfortunate case where a Scheduled Caste candidate was
selected as the Extra Departmental Branch Post Master at a place called Ariyur
in pursuance of the selection held somewhere in the year 1997. That selection
was challenged by way of a show cause notice issued to him by the
Superintendent of Post Offices. In the show cause notice, it was suggested
that the selection itself was found to be bad, as three eligible candidates
were not available to compete with the second respondent. On that ground
alone, perhaps the exercise to examine the selection process was gone ahead by
the Superior Officer of the Superintendent of Post Offices and it was in
pursuance of the directions issued by him that the said show cause notice came
to be issued. The second respondent gave an answer to this show cause notice,
but in that answer unfortunately the second respondent has not taken up a
position that there were in fact more than three eligible candidates available
at the time of the interview or at the time of the selection. The show cause
notice instead came to be challenged on the ground that firstly it was
belated, secondly it pertains to a Schedule Caste candidate and thirdly, the
candidate selected had all the necessary qualifications for eligibility.
Unfortunately, however, that explanation was not accepted and he came to be
slapped with the termination order, which termination he challenged before the
Central Administrative Tribunal. The Central Administrative Tribunal relying
upon another judgment, in common batch cases, held that the termination was
bad as according to the Tribunal there were as many as eight candidates
available for the interview and therefore, there could be no question of more
than three candidates not being available for selection. It is this order of
the Central Administrative Tribunal, which is challenged in the present writ
petition.
2. Mr.R.Santhanam, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel
points out that the Tribunal has nowhere considered the contentions raised on
behalf of the Central Government that at the time of selection, it was
imperative for all the candidates to give their property details by 05.05.1997
and that no candidate had given the property details or the certificates
regarding the existence of the property in their name. It was the second
respondent alone who, probably, had given the certificate stating that he was
a joint holder of the property, but, however, he had also not given the
certificate of exclusive ownership of the property, which certificate came to
be given only on 22.05.1997 i.e., 17 days after the notified date. Learned
counsel points out that the factual finding of the Tribunal that there were
eight candidates available is not correct for the simple reason that it has
nowhere come on record that all those eight candidates or at least more than
three out of them had given the details of their properties. We have gone
through the findings of the Tribunal and we also do not find any where that
the Tribunal has in any way supported its finding of fact by holding that all
the eight candidates or at least more than three out of them had given the
property details on or before 05.05.1997. In that view, we are unable to
accept the finding of fact by the Tribunal. Once that finding goes, then the
only material available on record would be the detection by the higher
authority, who went into the selection process and found that the eight
candidates, who came for the interview, had not given the property details.
3. It seems that the Tribunal was more impressed on account of the
fact that the Tribunal in the earlier judgment had expressed an opinion that
such property details were not liable to be given at the notified date, but
such details could be supplied even after the selection process. However, we
find that the judgment of the Tribunal had been upset by this Court in
W.P.Nos.18692 and 18695 of 1999 dated 26.06.2 003 wherein this Court has held
that the Tribunal could not be allowed to rewrite the selection rules and that
it was imperative for all the candidates to give the property details at the
notified date only and not beyond the same. Therefore, this Court has taken a
clear view that the candidates cannot be allowed to supplement their
information about the property after their selection and that it is imperative
for the candidates to give all the property details prior to the selection and
more particularly on the notified date.
4. Learned counsel also pointed out that in this case even the
selected respondent had not given his property details and he gave the
property details only on 22.5.1997 i.e., 17 days after the notified date. In
that view, obviously, the order of the Tribunal would be incorrect, because,
according to the learned counsel, as per the Communication issued by the
Government of India, vide No.STB/1-1/95/Rlgs Dated 0 3.12.1997 and more
particularly paragraph 8, it is a must that there has to be availability of
minimum three eligible candidates for holding interview and for going ahead
with the process and if there are no minimum candidates for being selected
then the concerned authority cannot proceed with the selection and have to
either obtain approval prior to the issuance of the appointment order or at
least give an advertisement and invite applications from the open market.
That obviously also has not been done. It is also relevant to extract the
concerned paragraph:-
“In case the Employment Exchange fails to sponsor the minimum number of 3
eligible candidates, an open advertisement should be issued calling for
nominations. Even here if the minimum number of 3 eligible candidates do not
offer their candidatures approval of the next higher authority to the proposed
appointment should be obtained before selection is made from amongst such
candidates. In case the Employment Exchange nominates lesser number of
eligible candidates than 3 and it becomes necessary to call for application
from the open market also, the candidatures of the nominee of the Employment
Exchange should also be considered along with those offering their
candidatures in response to the open advertisement”
Learned counsel fairly conceded that there was nothing on record supplied by
him that minimum of three eligible candidates were actually available for
selection. In that view, paragraph 8 of the communication issued by the
Government of India, which we have already quoted above, would apply, and the
order of the Tribunal would be clearly incorrect. We, accordingly, set aside
that order.
5. We are told at the Bar that the termination order has already been
issued and another candidate has already been selected and hence, this writ
petition has actually become infructuous. However, since it was a question of
career of the second respondent, we have expressed our opinion.
6. Before parting with the case, we would like to express that this
exercise of examining the selection process should not be taken in the
leisurely manner as it has been done. Such exercises are not to be taken by
way of supplementing or fanning one’s egos. They are to be taken for keeping
the selection process pure and unpolluted. We have found in a number of cases
that such exercise have been taken after the candidates have worked for more
than one year. We really do not understand as to why the candidates, who were
selected in the so called defective manner, are allowed to work for one or two
years and then are sent home. We hope that the Central Government and the
concerned authority would take necessary steps to expedite the exercise, if it
so decides to take.
7. We allow the writ petition and make the rule absolute. No costs.
Consequently, W.P.M.P.No.28388 of 1999 is closed.
Index:Yes
Internet:Yes
pv
Copy to:
1. Union of India
rep. by the Post Master General
Central Region
Tiruchirappalli 620 001.
2. Superintendent of Post Offices
Karur Postal Division
Karur 639 001.
