Thakur Dass v. Union of India & Ors.

For the Respondents : Mr. K.B. Kahjuria, Government respondents No.1 to 5. Counsel, None for respondent No.6. Central Per Surjit Singh, Judge( Oral ) Writ petitioner is aggrieved by that portion of order dated 29th November, 2001, of the Central Administrative Tribunal, whereby entire selection process for the post of Extra Departmental Branch Post Master, Post Office Dodhamb, has been quashed and selection for the post has been ordered to be made afresh.

2. Relevant facts may be summed up thus. There was one vacancy of Extra Departmental Branch Post Master in Post Office Dodhamb. Ten candidates submitted applications. Writ petitioner and respondent No.6 were among those candidates. Selection committee selected respondent No.6 Shri Ajay Kumar Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? (cid:133)2(cid:133) and consequently he was appointed. Writ petitioner challenged the selection and appointment, inter alia, on the ground that character certificate purportedly issued by Gram Panchayat Pradhan, which respondent No.6 submitted alongwith his application, was forged.

3. Central Administrative Tribunal accepted the plea of the writ petitioner holding that the character certificate submitted by respondent No.6 was a forged one and he having committed an act of forgery ought not to have been selected and appointed, even though on verification of his character and antecedents, after selection, nothing adverse was reported against him. Learned Tribunal observed that the very act of committing forgery by respondent No.6 vitiated his selection and consequential appointment. It, therefore, set aside and quashed the selection and appointment of respondent No.6. Prayer made by the writ petitioner to the Tribunal that he, being a candidate next in order of merit, be appointed after setting aside the appointment of respondent No.6, did not find favour with the Tribunal. Instead the Tribunal ordered initiation of fresh selection process.

4. Writ petitioner filed a review petition before the Tribunal that there was no ground for ordering fresh selection, because it was only the selection of respondent No.6 and his consequential appointment, which was vitiated, on account of his having submitted forged certificate and on quashing of appointment of respondent No.6, he ought to have been directed to be appointed. That review petition was dismissed, solely on (cid:133)3(cid:133) the ground that the scope of Order XLVII, Rule 1, of the Code of Civil Procedure, read with Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, was limited and no ground for review was made out.

5. Feeling aggrieved by the denial of his prayer for appointment as Extra Departmental Branch Post Master against the post vacated, on account of quashing of the appointment of respondent No.6, writ petitioner has approached this Court, under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. It is stated in the writ petition that once the selection and appointment of respondent No.6 had been quashed, the candidate next in order of merit, which, in the present case, happened to be the writ petitioner, ought to have been ordered to be appointed against the post of Extra Departmental Branch Post Master.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioner as also the learned counsel representing respondents No.1 to 5. Nobody has appeared for respondent No.6, despite service of notice of actual date of hearing. We have also gone through the record and the order of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal.

7. It is clear from the order of the learned Tribunal itself that there was no illegality or even an irregularity in the selection process adopted by respondents No.1 to 5 for selecting a candidate for appointment against an advertised post. Appointment of respondent No.6 was found to be illegal and consequently quashed, because of his having submitted a forged certificate of character with his application. Tribunal found that (cid:133)4(cid:133) the forgery had apparently been committed by respondent No.6 himself.

8. Now, when the selection and appointment had been quashed only for the reason that respondent No.6 committed an act of forgery, the entire selection process ought not to have been ignored by the Central Administrative Tribunal and the candidate next in order of merit should have been ordered to be considered for appointment. It is made out from the material on record, i.e. Annexure R-1, the list showing the marks obtained by each of the ten candidates, who applied for the post, that the present writ petitioner was at number two in order of merit, respondent No.6 being at number one. Therefore, direction should have been given to respondents No.1 to 5 to consider the present writ petitioner for appointment against the aforesaid post of Extra Departmental Branch Post Master, Post Office Dodhamb.

9. For the foregoing reasons, we allow this writ petition and set aside that portion of the order of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal which orders for initiation of fresh selection process for the aforesaid post. Consequently, respondents No.1 to 5 are directed to consider the present writ petitioner for appointment against the aforesaid post of Extra Departmental Branch Post Master, on the basis of the result tabulated in Annexure R-1. We may notice that learned counsel representing respondents No.1 to 5 has intimated that after the passing of the impugned order by the Tribunal fresh selection was made and respondent No.6 was selected and appointed. (cid:133)5(cid:133) This Court, vide interim order dated 8th February, 2002, ordered that any action taken by respondents No.1 to 5, in pursuance of the impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, shall be subject to further orders of this Court. By reference to the aforesaid interim order and also because of the allowing of the present writ petition, we order that in case in compliance with our aforesaid direction writ petitioner, on consideration, is found to be suitable for appointment, he shall be appointed against the post against which respondent No.6 has been re-appointed, on the basis of fresh selection carried out in compliance with the impugned order of the Tribunal, meaning thereby respondent No.6 shall be removed and in his place the present writ petitioner shall be appointed. Writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. ( R.B. Misra ), J. August 27, 2008(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J.