Parmanand Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 478 of 2009
[Arising out of SLP (C) No. 9440 of 2005]
[Arising out of SLP (C) No. 9440 of 2005]
Petitioner: Parmanand Singh
Respondent: Union of India and Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 478 of 2009
[Arising out of SLP (C) No. 9440 of 2005]
[Arising out of SLP (C) No. 9440 of 2005]
Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat & Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 28, 2009
Head Note:
SERVICE and LABOUR LAWS
Appointment – Claim to post of EDBPM – Not accepted due to encumbrance of appellant’s land and non-filing of original certificates – Writ filed dismissed – Appellant’s stand that encumbrance related to land not belonging to him and original documents being submitted with an academic institution could not be filed. Held in view of the fact that original documents could not be produced the question of whether original documents were required as held by departmental authorities not examined. Directions given for adjusting appellant in case of any vacancy. Respondent No.6’s continuance in the job not to be disturbed.
Appointment – Claim to post of EDBPM – Not accepted due to encumbrance of appellant’s land and non-filing of original certificates – Writ filed dismissed – Appellant’s stand that encumbrance related to land not belonging to him and original documents being submitted with an academic institution could not be filed. Held in view of the fact that original documents could not be produced the question of whether original documents were required as held by departmental authorities not examined. Directions given for adjusting appellant in case of any vacancy. Respondent No.6’s continuance in the job not to be disturbed.
JUDGEMENT:
Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellant. Before the High Court, challenge was to the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench (in short the `CAT’). The CAT by the impugned order negatived the claim of the appellant for appointment to the post of Extra Departmental Branch Post Master (in short `EDBPM’). CAT held that the claim made by the appellant cannot be accepted on two grounds; firstly, his land was encumbered and secondly he did not file the original certificates with regard to his qualifications. Stand of the appellant before the High Court was that the conclusions relating to encumbrance of land are incorrect as the encumbrance was with regard to another plot of land and not relating to the land belonging to the appellant. It was also pointed out that the certificates were produced at the time of hearing of the original application before the CAT. The High Court held that even if the first ground that the land was not encumbered is accepted, the writ petition was to be dismissed as all the relevant documents were not produced and respondent No.6 who was appointed had filed all the relevant documents. Therefore, the petition was dismissed.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the original documents were with the institution where the appellant was pursuing his studies and in fact the institution had clearly certified that the original copy of the mark sheet, admit card, school leaving certificate and other documents submitted by the students at the time of their admission are not returned to them under an order passed by the State Government. It is the stand of the appellant that there is no requirement to produce the original documents.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent-State supported the judgments of the CAT and the High Court.
5. It is not disputed that the original documents were not produced before the authorities because the documents were with the institution i.e. Ramdayalu Singh College, Muzaffarpur and the appellant was not in a position to produce the original documents. In view of the aforesaid it is not necessary to examine whether there is any requirement for producing the original documents as observed by the departmental authorities. Respondent No.6 is continuing in his job. Therefore, without disturbing his continuance, we direct that in case there is any vacancy in the nearby area where the appellant can be adjusted, the same can be done by the authorities after following the necessary norms. The appellant shall not be entitled to any back wages and the continuance of Respondent No.6 shall not be disturbed.
6. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellant. Before the High Court, challenge was to the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench (in short the `CAT’). The CAT by the impugned order negatived the claim of the appellant for appointment to the post of Extra Departmental Branch Post Master (in short `EDBPM’). CAT held that the claim made by the appellant cannot be accepted on two grounds; firstly, his land was encumbered and secondly he did not file the original certificates with regard to his qualifications. Stand of the appellant before the High Court was that the conclusions relating to encumbrance of land are incorrect as the encumbrance was with regard to another plot of land and not relating to the land belonging to the appellant. It was also pointed out that the certificates were produced at the time of hearing of the original application before the CAT. The High Court held that even if the first ground that the land was not encumbered is accepted, the writ petition was to be dismissed as all the relevant documents were not produced and respondent No.6 who was appointed had filed all the relevant documents. Therefore, the petition was dismissed.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the original documents were with the institution where the appellant was pursuing his studies and in fact the institution had clearly certified that the original copy of the mark sheet, admit card, school leaving certificate and other documents submitted by the students at the time of their admission are not returned to them under an order passed by the State Government. It is the stand of the appellant that there is no requirement to produce the original documents.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent-State supported the judgments of the CAT and the High Court.
5. It is not disputed that the original documents were not produced before the authorities because the documents were with the institution i.e. Ramdayalu Singh College, Muzaffarpur and the appellant was not in a position to produce the original documents. In view of the aforesaid it is not necessary to examine whether there is any requirement for producing the original documents as observed by the departmental authorities. Respondent No.6 is continuing in his job. Therefore, without disturbing his continuance, we direct that in case there is any vacancy in the nearby area where the appellant can be adjusted, the same can be done by the authorities after following the necessary norms. The appellant shall not be entitled to any back wages and the continuance of Respondent No.6 shall not be disturbed.
6. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
