High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 879/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE I A ANSARI THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P. K. MUSAHARY Aggrieved by the order, dated 08.09.2009, passed, in Original Applicatio n (in short, ’OA’) No. 148/2006, by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench (hereinafter referred to as the ’learned Tribunal’), whereby the learned Tribunal allowed the OA and set aside and quashed the punishment impose d by the disciplinary authority and upheld by the appellate authority, the writ petitioners, who were respondents in OA No. 148/2006, have filed this writ petit ion, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, putting to challenge the or der, dated 08.09.2009, aforementioned. 2. The material facts, leading to the passing of the impugned order, dated 08.09.2009, aforementioned, may, in brief, be set out as under: (i) An advertisement was issued for appointment to the post of Grami n Dak Sevak Branch Postmaster (in short, ’GDSBP’) by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Contai Division, West Bengal, the predecessor-in-office of the responde nt herein. The advertisement laid down the following conditions, amongst others , as criteria for eligibility for recruitment to the said post:- (cid:28)2. Education: The candidate should have passed matriculation or equivalent exam ination. No weightage will be given for any qualification higher than matricula tion. Certificate should be enclosed (Mark sheet also) 3. Income: The candidate should have an independent source of income. The quant um of income and the source of income should be mentioned and a certificate with these particulars issued by the competent authority should be enclosed. 4. Property: The candidate should have landed property. Documentary proof of th e property should be enclosed accompanied by a certificate from the competent au thority certifying the ownership of property. 5. Residence: The candidate should be resident of ___________ village otherwise he must have sufficient proof that he is residing in the village before taking u p appointment and known to the locality. (cid:29) (ii)
Legal Reasoning
It was, thereafter, that the respondent filed the OA before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, and the learned Tribuna l, having considered the case of the respondent, on the one hand, and the presen t writ petitioner, on the other, came, in effect, to the conclusion that the Mem orandum of Charge and the statement, containing the imputation of misconduct, we re devoid of any merit and, therefore, set aside and quashed the punishment impo sed on the respondent by the disciplinary authority and upheld by the appellate authority. 3. We have heard Ms. J. Huda, learned Central Government counsel, appearing for the writ petitioners. We have also heard Mr. U. K. Nair, learned counsel, who has appeared as amicus curiae. 4. While considering the present writ petition, what attracts our attention , most prominently, is that some of the conditions of eligibility, as embodied i n the advertisement, if read carefully, make it transparent that educational qua lification could not have been the only criterion for selecting a candidate inas much as a candidate was required to satisfy, as the other eligibility criteria f or appointment, that he/she had an independent source of income and that he/she possessed landed property. In the reply to the charges served on the respondent herein, he had clearly shown that though the candidates, who stood selected by the respondent, had secured lower marks than some other candidates, the selected candidates had adequate income; whereas the income of the candidates, who had n ot been selected, had been found to be inadequate. The correctness of the findi ngs, which the respondent had recorded in his reply, was never questioned. 5. In the circumstances aforementioned, it becomes glaringly noticeable tha t the rejected candidates did not have adequate income source and since they did not have adequate income, the question of offering them appointment, merely bec ause they had secured higher marks in the Secondary Examination, would have gone against the conditions of eligibility, which stood prescribed in the advertisem ent itself. The entire foundation of the charges for holding the respondent gui lty is based on the premise that he ought to have appointed the candidates, who had secured higher marks in the Secondary Examination, and give them opportunity take up their residence, before their appointment, within the delivery jurisdic tion of the post office concerned or in the village, where the post office conce rned was located. 6. We have gone through the Memorandum of Charge, dated 07.01.2003, issued to the respondent herein by the disciplinary authority and what we find, to our surprise, is that contrary to what the advertisement had prescribed, the discipl inary authority advocated, in its Memorandum of Charge aforementioned, that a ca ndidate ought to have been appointed on the basis of higher marks having been ob tained in the Secondary Examination and on the candidates taking up their respec tive residences within the delivery jurisdiction of the post offices concerned o r in the village, where the post offices concerned were located, ignoring one o f the essential conditions of appointment, namely, whether he/she had adequate i ncome or not. When an administrative decision suffers from consideration of any irrele 7. vant factor or when an administrative decision is based on exclusion of any rele vant factor, such an administrative decision is, in either case, bad in law, for , such a decision would not withstand the test of a fair, just and valid decisio n. Neither the disciplinary authority nor the appellate authority, in the prese nt case, took into account the relevant factor, namely, the question as to wheth er the candidates, who had secured higher marks in Secondary Examination, had ad equate income or not. Such a decision cannot but be regarded as arbitrary, irra tional and unreasonable, more particularly, because the decision was reached by the disciplinary authority and also the appellate authority ignoring a relevant condition of appointment. 8. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, we do not fin d that the conclusions, which the learned Tribunal reached, and the impugned ord er, which the learned Tribunal passed, suffer from any infirmity, legal or factu al. 9. d dismissed. 10. luable assistance rendered to the Court. 11. Let a sum of Rs. 5,000/- be paid to the learned amicus curiae for his va This writ petition, therefore, fails and the same shall accordingly stan
Arguments
Responding to the advertisement, several candidates offered thei r candidature. However, the respondent herein, who was, at the relevant point o f time, posted as the Superintendent of Posts, Contai, Division, selected Sri D ebabrata Mahato, Shri Sovan Das Mahapatra, Shri Jayanta Kr. Patra and Kalipada S ingh, as GDSBP, and appointed them accordingly. (iii) Following the appointment, so made, while the respondent was fun ctioning as the Superintendent, (STG), Guwahati RMS, Guwahati, the respondent wa s served with a Memorandum, dated 07.01.2003, issued by the disciplinary authori ty, under Rule 16 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and App eal) Rules, 1965, directing him to show cause, if any, against the imputations o f misconduct, which were annexed to the charges. In substance, the allegation a gainst the respondent was that the respondent had selected persons for appointme nt to the post of GDSBP, who had obtained lower marks in the Secondary Examinati on, though candidates, securing higher marks in the Secondary Examination, were available and the conditions of recruitment, as circulated by the Department con cerned, had made it clear that, while making selection for appointment to the po st of GDSBP, it need not be insisted upon, as a condition of appointment, that t he permanent residence of the candidate has to be within the delivery jurisdicti on of the post office concerned or in the village, where the post office concern ed was located and that even a candidate, who may not be a resident of the villa ge, where the post office concerned is located, shall be given appointment provi ded that, before taking the appointment, the selected candidate takes up his res idence in the village, where the post office concerned is located, or within the delivery jurisdiction of the post office concerned. (iv) The respondent furnished his reply, on 29.01.2003, to the Memora ndum of Charge and the statement containing the imputation of misconduct. While furnishing his reply, the respondent assigned reasons for selecting the candida tes concerned. Some of the prominent aspects of the respondent’s reply being as follows: (a) In respect of the selection of Sri Debabrata Mahato as the Branc h Post Master, Khatnagar, the respondent herein furnished, alongwith his reply, a comparative chart assigning reasons for selection of Sri Debabrata Mahato, whi ch reads as under: Name of the candidate wn name Independent income/pm e declaration that he would provide space in PO vill/resides 1.Pinki Das ected 2. Guradas Chakraborty t be selected 3. Debabrata Mahata Marks secured in Secondary Exam Landed property in his o If living outsid Remarks Could not be sel Whether from post village inadequate inadequate adequate Selected Could no 10 dec 71 dec 69.37% 71.33% 71.75% 4 dec Yes Yes No No No No (b) In respect of the selection of Sri Sovan Das Mahapatra as the Br anch Post Master, Khar, the respondent herein furnished, alongwith his reply, a comparative chart assigning reasons for his selection of Sri Sovan Das Mahapatra , which reads as under: Sl. No. Name of the candidate in his own name Independent income/pm esident in post village Remarks 1 dent 2 dent 3 Selected Anupam Panda not selected Ms. Manjulata Mandal not selected Sovan Das Mahapatra Marks secured in Secondary Exam Landed property Declaration to provide space & whether r adquate Yes and resident Nil and not resi Nil and not resi inadequate inadequate 1.23 dec 1.81 dec 58.27% 71.77% 25 dec 73.78% (c) Similarly, in respect of Selection of Sri Jayanta Kr. Patra as t he Branch Post Master, Gakaulpur, the respondent herein furnished, alongwith his reply, a comparative chart assigning reasons for selection of Sri Jayanta Kr. P atra, which reads as under: Sl. No. Name of the candidate in his own name Independent income/pm esident in post village Remarks 1 Selected 2 cted Jayanta Kr. Patra Swapan Kr. Maity 42% 72.72% Marks secured in Secondary Exam Landed property Declaration to provide space & whether r 3 ac 8 dec adequate Yes 16 dec inadequate Nil not sele (d) The respondent herein also furnished, alongwith his reply to the Memorandum of Charge and the statement containing the imputation of misconduct, a comparative chart assigning reasons for selection of Sri Kalipada Singh as th e Branch Post Master, Tanua, which reads as under: Sl. No. Name of the candidate in his own name Independent income/pm esident in post village Remarks Kalipada Singh 1 Adequate 10 dec 42.2% Marks secured in Secondary Exam Landed property Declaration to provide space & whether r Yes Selected 2 cted Ramesh Ch. Saren 47.33% 55 dec Inadequate Nil not sele (v) Having received the reply of the respondent against the charges, which had been framed against him, the disciplinary authority issued an order, dated 07.05.2003, taking the view that the respondent ought to have selected the candidates, who had secured higher marks in the Secondary Examination, than the candidates, who had been selected, irrespective of the fact as to whether the c andidates, who had secured higher marks, had residence within the delivery juris diction of the post office concerned or in the village, where the post office co ncerned was located inasmuch as the respondent ought to have, in terms of the gu idelines, issued in this regard, given appointment to the candidates, who had se cured higher marks provided that the selected candidates took up their residence , before their appointment, within the delivery jurisdiction of the post office concerned or in the village, where the post office concerned was located. As th e respondent had not, according to the disciplinary authority, given appointment to persons, who had secured higher marks in Secondary Examination, on the groun d that they were not residing within the delivery jurisdiction of the post offic e concerned or in the villages, where the post offices concerned were located, t he act of so giving appointments by the respondent constituted misconduct and th e charges, therefore, stood proved. The disciplinary authority accordingly orde red to stop one increment in the pay scale of the respondent, falling due next, for three years without cumulative effect. (vi) Aggrieved by the punishment, which was so imposed on him by the order, dated 07.03.2003, aforementioned, the respondent preferred an appeal bef ore the Director General (Posts), but his appeal did not yield any favourable re sult and as the appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority. (vii)