Jayanta Kumar Dey vs Union of India (UOI)

Aloke Chakrabarti, J.—This writ petition was filed by the Petitioner challenging the order of the tribunal dismissing the original application filed by the Petitioner. Contentions of the Petitioner are that the Petitioner participated in a selection process when his name was sponsored by the concerned employment exchange. Petitioner was called for interview on March 18, 1997 and he appeared. Petitioner was placed at the first position in the selection list and was given the letter of appointment dated April 17, 1997 as Extra Departmental Delivery Agent (hereinafter referred to as EDDA) with effect from March 26,1997. Respondent No. 6 who was also a candidate in the said selection process and was not selected and consequently not given the appointment, challenged the said selection of the Petitioner before the Central Administrative Tribunal in original application No. 514 of 1997.

By memo dated November 9, 1998, service of the Petitioner was terminated and thereafter by memo dated November 13, 1998, said termination was kept in abeyance until further orders. Petitioner moved an orginal application before the Central Administrative Tribunal in original application No. 183 of 1999 and the said application was admitted by the tribunal,

Tribunal by its judgment and order dated May 17, 2004 dismissed the original application filed by the Petitioner and challenging the said order, this writ petition was filed.

Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, learned Counsel for the government Respondent and the learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 6.

Contention of the Petitioner is that the tribunal was wrong in dismissing the application of the Petitioner on the ground indicated in the impugned judgment. It appears that present Petitioner secured 51.8 per cent marks in Madhyamik Examination and Respondent No. 6 secured 55.33 per cent marks in Madhyamik Examination and still then the Petitioner was selected and was given appointment. Contention of the Petitioner is that under the rules, requisite qualification is class VIII pass and preference was to be given to Madhyamik passed candidates, and therefore, result in Madhyamik Examination cannot guide the selection. In such circumstances, recommendation of the selections and appointment followed thereby by the appointing authority cannot be disturbed by the triubunal simply on the basis of higher marks secured by the private Respondent No. ''6 in Madhyamik Examination when Madhyamik Examination is not the compulsory requirement for selection itself. It is further contended that in a method of recruitment, there are several criteria and selection was not to be made under the rules only on marks secured in Madhyamik Examination and therefore, the selectors'' decision could not be interfered with. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied on the judgment in the cases of Bibhudatta Mohanty Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, and Secy. (Health) Deptt. of Health and F.W. and Another Vs. Dr. Anita Puri and Others, .

Learned Advocate for the private Respondent contended that cases cited on behalf of the Petitioner do not apply in present case and in the case of Bibhudatta Mohanty qualification required only was class VIII pass and therefore, judgment was decided in the said manner whereas in the present case the result of Madhyamik Examination also is a factor to be considered and preference, according to the rules, is to be given to Madhyamik Examination''s result. Learned Advocate for the government Respondent also produced the record for showing the relevant materials in support of his contention that selectors'' decision could not decide the issue and the judgment of the tribunal is right in view of the fact that Respondent No. 6 ought to have been selected as he secured higher marks in Madhyamik Examination than the Petitioner.

Considering the aforesaid contentions, it appears the relevant provision for method of recruitment of EDDA is as follows:

VIII standard. Preference may be given to the candidates with matriculation qualifications. No weightage should be given for any qualification higher than matriculation. Should have sufficient working know-ledge of the regional language and simple arithmetic so as to be able to discharge their duties satisfactorily.

In such circumstances, we do not find that tribunal went wrong in concluding that Respondent No. 6 having secured higher marks than the Petitioner in Madhyamik examination is entitled to be selected.

The contention of the Petitioner is that there are various criteria in the matter of selection apart from academic qualification. But nothing has been shown from records either by Petitioner or government Respondent that Respondent No. 6 is less qualified than the Petitioner in any other respect. Records produced by the Respondent do not appear to have substantiated the allegation of the Petitioner. The Petitioner has not also made out any case that he possess any other qualification making him better candidate than the Respondent No. 6.

In the case of Bibhudatta Mohanty( Supra) selection process required candidates only having VIIIth class pass qualification, and there was no provision for preference for any other qualification. In that factual background, findings were arrived at. But in present case over and above the VIII standard passed, preference has been provided for matriculation qualification. Therefore, consideration of marks secured in Madhyamik examination, which is equivalent to matriculation examination cannot be found fault with. Similarly in the case of Secretary v. Dr. Anita Puri ( Supra) it was decided that when an advertisement stipulates a particular qualification as the minimum'' qualification for the post and further stipulates that preference would be given for higher qualification, only meaning it conveys is that some additional weightage has to be given to the candidates with higher qualification and it cannot be construed to mean that a person with a higher qualification is automatically entitled to be selected'' and appointed. In present case, we do not find that same question is involved and here the question is as to whether higher marks obtained in the examination which makes a candidate entitled to preference, can result in selection and appointment when other qualifications are all equal. Question involved in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma and Others Vs. Chander Shekhar and Another, reported in and Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. V.P. Parukutty (Smt), reported in are in different factual background and the question, decided there do not help deciding the present proceeding.

In above view of the matter, we do not find any reason for interference with the order impugned and the writ petition therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed.

S.P. Talukdar, J.

I agree.