Ghanshyam Lal Kala vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

In this writ petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the validity of judgment dated 30th January, 2002 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in Original Application No. 53/2001, by which, learned Tribunal has set aside the selection of petitioner on the post of EDBPM while following the earlier judgment dated 22nd October, 2001 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Applications No. 50/2001 and 51/2001. The judgment impugned reads as under:

The law on the point has been elaborately discussed in the aforesaid judgement and we find that the case of the applicant is fully covered by the said judgment.

Giving benefit of the aforesaid judgement of the applicant and taking into consideration the admitted portion that the marks of the applicant were higher than respondent No. 5 is the High School, we allow this OA and direct the respondents that after selecting the candidate on the basis of marks obtained in the S S L C (Matriculation) Examination, the selected candidate may be asked to fulfill the requirement of property/income certificate etc. within a period of three months.

Upon perusal of the above judgment, it is revealed that direction has been issued by the Tribunal to the respondents that first selection shall be made on the post of EDBPM and after selection candidate may be asked to fulfill the requirement of property/income certificate etc. within a period of three months, which is not correct as per rules of the department.

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner has also invited attention of this Court towards the recent judgement of Hon''ble Apex Court reported in Smt. Kiran Singh Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, in which, the following judgment has been made by the Hon''ble Apex Court:

In the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view the order of the CAT which has been affirmed by the High Court is manifestly erroneous and cannot be sustained. The appellant and respondent No. 5 both have qualified the High School Examination by securing first division. The eligibility and criterion for the selection of the candidate to the post of EDBPM as per the Service Rules was not only the merit between the two candidates in High School Examination but the additional criterion was that the candidate must be one who has "adequate means of livelihood derived from landed property or immovable assets" if the candidate is otherwise eligible for appointment. The instructions governing the eligibility of the candidates also provide that no weightage will be given for any higher qualification. The appellant has fulfilled the essential qualification and required eligibility criterion and as such her selection to hold the post in question was valid whereas respondent No. 5 was not eligible to be appointed on the post for lack of income criterion in terms of the Circular.

In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 19.12.2003 passed in CMWP No. 56142 of 2003 and order dated 28.01.2005 recorded in CM Review/Recall Application No. 9847 of 2004 are quashed and set aside. As a result thereof, the order dated 24.11.2003 of the CAT in OA No. 1041 of 1996 by which the application of respondent No. 5 has been allowed and appointment of the appellant has been set aside, shall also stand quashed an set aside.

In the result, this appeal is allowed accordingly. Parties shall bear their own costs.

In view of the above adjudication made by the Hon''ble Apex Court, it is abundantly clear that Hon''ble Apex Court has held that for appointment on the post of EDBPM as per Service Rules, the candidate is required to possess Higher School Examination alongwith the other qualification with regard to having adequate means of livelihood derived from landed property or immovable assets.

Admittedly, respondent - Shanti Lal was not possessing qualification as per rules interpreted by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in above case.

In view of the judgment of Hon''ble Apex Court in Smt. Kiran Singh''s case (supra), this writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment dated 30th January, 2002 is hereby quashed and set aside with no order as to costs.