MIRA DEVI------------------------------------------(Appellant) vs THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS---------------(Respondents)

post of EDBPM, Shrikhandi Bhitha. The said letter required the candidates to be sponsored to have, amongst others, some landed property duly mutated in their name prior to the last date of receipt of the sponsorship. This requirement was insisted purportedly to demonstrate adequate means of livelihood of the candidate to be sponsored. Three candidates were, accordingly, sponsored - 2 - by the Employment Exchange in question. The authority concerned thereupon selected Smt. Meera Devi. The Government, while prescribing the mode of appointing E.D. Agents, in 1993 directed that the person, who takes over the agency, must have adequate means of livelihood and must be able to offer space for postal operations. The Government clarified that the first and foremost condition for selecting such agent is that he should have adequate means of livelihood and that if he loses his main source of income, he should be adjudged to have incurred disqualification to continue to act as such agent. The government on 6th December, 1993 clarified that it is not necessary to quantify “adequate means of livelihood”, however, preference may be given to those candidates whose “adequate means of livelihood” is derived from landed property or immovable assets, if they are otherwise eligible for selection. There is no dispute that in order to be appointed as such agent, the candidate is required to have educational qualification of matriculation. In the Matriculation examination, there is no dispute that Smt. Rani Suman obtained better marks than the other two sponsored candidates namely, Smt. Meera Devi and Shri Narayan Prasad. Smt. Rani Suman accordingly, challenged the selection of Smt. Meera Devi in O.A. No.406 of 1999 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, when the postal authorities

3. - 3 - disclosed that the reason for not selecting Smt. Rani Suman was that she did not hold any immovable property in her own name. It was not disclosed that the reason not to select her was that she did not have adequate means of livelihood.

4. The third candidate Shri Narayan Prasad filed O.A. No.21 of 2001 before the Central Administrative Tribunal also challenging selection of Smt. Meera Devi. In the said application, Shri Narayan Prasad contended that he passed Madhyama examination, which equivalent matriculation, and in the said examination, he obtained better marks than the other two candidates and as such rejection of his candidature and selection of Smt. Meera Devi is not justified. In the said application, the postal authorities disclosed that although sponsorship of Sri Narayan Prasad was based upon his qualification of Madhyama, but it is a fact that prior to passing Madhyama Shri Narayan Prasad had passed matriculation examination and since matriculation was the qualification, the marks obtained by Shri Narayan Prasad in matriculation were taken note of and in the said examination, he had secured much less marks than the other two candidates namely, Smt. Rani Suman and Smt. Meera Devi.

5. In O.A. No.406 of 1999, the Tribunal found there is no prescription that for being appointed as an agent the candidate is required to have an immovable property and there is no contention on the part of postal authority that - 4 - Smt. Rani Suman had no adequate means of livelihood. On such premise selection of Smt. Meera Devi, who received less marks than Smt. Rani Suman in the matriculation examination was declared not sustainable and accordingly, selection of Smt. Meera Devi was quashed, with a direction to make re-selection. In O.A. No.21 of 2001, the Central Administrative Tribunal did not express any opinion whether assessing merit of Shri Narayan Prasad on the basis of marks obtained by him in matriculation and not on marks obtained by him in Madhyama was appropriate or inappropriate, principally, for the order rendered in O.A. No.406 of 1999. By two writ petitions Meera Devi challenged the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal passed in O.A. No.406 of 1999 and O.A. No.21 of 2001. We have heard learned counsel appearing for Smt. Meera Devi, Shri Narayan Prasad, Smt. Rani Suman and the postal authorities. The learned counsel appearing in support of the writ petitions contended that Smt. Rani Suman has not been able to establish that she had adequate means of livelihood. It was submitted that despite one round before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the second before this Court, Smt. Rani Suman has failed to disclose her adequate means of livelihood. It was submitted that in such situation, rejection of candidature of Smt. Rani Suman was not inappropriate. Having regard to the contentions raised in O.A. No.406 of 1999 and in the

7. - 5 - connected writ petition, Smt. Rani Suman, to our mind, was not called upon to disclose her adequate means of livelihood, since the postal authorities did never question the same. She was only required to establish that even assuming that the postal authorities rightly did not believe that she owns any immovable property in her name, still then for not having such immovable property, her candidature could not be rejected on the principles contained in the circulars governing the field. We have already discussed the relevant provisions of the circulars in question, which do not insist that only a person owning immovable property should be deemed to have adequate means of livelihood. That being the situation, there is no scope of interference in the writ petition in which the order passed in O.A. No.406 of 1999 has been challenged, and accordingly the said writ petition is dismissed.

8. However, a substantial question has been raised in the writ petition, whereby and under the order passed in O.A. No.21 of 2001 has been challenged. The question is when matriculation was the required qualification and such qualification could be substituted by an equivalent qualification, whether a person, who is a matriculate and has also acquired an equivalent qualification, could be assessed on the basis of the equivalent qualification and not his matriculation qualification. This Court proceedings is not the forum for deciding whether a matriculate could obtain an equivalent qualification, as was - 6 - done by Shri Narayan Prasad by obtaining qualification of Madhyama, after having had become a matriculate. We proceed on the basis, without deciding, that a person is entitled to obtain equivalent qualification of Madhyama after becoming a matriculate. There cannot be any denial that if a candidate is permitted to appear in matriculation examinations in succession, he may take recourse to the best score obtained by him in his attempts in such examinations. The similar would be the outcome in relation to equivalent examinations. In other words, in the event a person is entitled to appear successively in Madhyama examinations, he can rely upon the best score obtained by him in such examinations. But a person, who has appeared in the matriculation examination and has also appeared in an examination equivalent that of matriculation, as that of Madhyama, he is not entitled to rely upon the marks obtained by him in the equivalent examination, in as much as the qualification prescribed is matriculation.

9. The fact, however, remains that when candidature of Shri Narayan Prasad was sponsored, the sponsoring authority did not bring to the notice of the postal authorities that Sri Narayan Prasad is also a matriculate. In other words, for all practical purposes it must be deemed that Sri Narayan Prasad, while applying, held out that he is holder of an equivalent qualification i.e., Madhyama. In such circumstances, if we say that postal authorities could not - 7 - reckon his score in matriculation and could take note of marks obtained by him in Madhyama only that would not be appropriate. Even though Sri Narayan Prasad was entitle to appear in Madhyama after having had passed matriculation, when matriculation was the basic qualification, it was obligatory on his part to inform the authorities concerned that he is a matriculate and after having had passed matriculation examination he has obtained Madhyama. If anything contrary is thought, that would tantamount to permiting Sri Narayan Prasad to steal a march. Therefore, it would be appropriate on our part to declare that while considering the case of Sri Narayan Prasad, the postal authorities correctly considered the marks obtained by Sri Narayan Prasad in matriculation and they did nothing wrong in not considering the marks obtained by him in Madhyama. We accordingly, allow the writ petition challenging the order passed in O.A. No.21 of 2001 and both the writ petitions are thus disposed of. (Barin Ghosh, J.) (C.M. Prasad, J.) Patna High Court, The 25th August, 2008. Mkr./NAFR.