IMPORTANT POINT
Owing of agricultural property and getting the name entered in Revenue Record are two different and distinct things. Mutation entry does not confer right or title to the property.

Headnote:SERVICE LAW-Appointments-Post of Extra Departmental Branch Post Master-Guidelines and norms fixed by the Department-During of agricultural property-Both appellant and respondent 6 had passed Matriculate Examination-Appellant had obtained 531 marks out of 900 marks-Respondent had obtained 584 marks-Appellant was possessing agricultural land-She was also having a residential house-Respondent 6 became owner of immovable property prior to last date of submission of application-Pursuant to a gift deed dated 14-10-1996, she became owner of agricultural land-Last date for submission of applications was 12-11-1996-Mutation entry, however, could be made on 22-11-1996-Whether it could be held that respondent 6 possessed agricultural land on the last date of submission of application-(Yes)-Mutation entry does not confer right or title to the property.
       Held : In our considered opinion, however, the learned counsel for respondent No.6 is right in submitting that respondent No. 6 had become owner of agricultural land in October, 1996. The relevant date for consideration was November 12, 1996 and before that date, she possessed such property. Rekha Chaturvedi, in our view, supports respondent No. 6 rather than the appellant. When respondent No. 6 became the owner of the property in October, 1996 before the last date of submission of application, she could be said to be possessing agricultural land and, hence, she was eligible. In our opinion, owning of agricultural property and getting the name entered in Revenue Record are two different and distinct things. Mutation entry does not confer right or title to the property. (Para 15)
       In view of settled legal position, in our judgment, CAT as well as the High Court were right in holding that though respondent No.6 was eligible having possessed agricultural land, her case was ignored by the authorities and hence, the action was illegal and improper. In view of the fact that respondent No. 6 was more meritorious, since she had obtained more marks than the appellant, the direction of CAT to appoint her cannot be said to be illegal or unlawful. The said direction is, therefore, not interfered with. (Para 16)
       Regarding appointment and continuance of the appellant for a period of almost eight years in service, it may be stated that respondent No. 6 had approached a competent Tribunal for ventilating her grievance immediately after the issuance of order in favour of the appellant. It was because of the pendency of the matter before the Tribunal that respondent No.6 could not get the case decided and the matter finally adjudicated. The learned counsel for respondent No. 6 is, therefore, right in submitting that the said fact should not cause prejudice to respondent No. 6 who had approached the Tribunal in time. To us, the CAT is right in considering the matter in its entirety and in making observations that the case of the appellant herein be considered for appointment as EDBPM in the nearby vicinity if otherwise she is fit. (Para 17)

JUDGMENT

Thakker, J.-Leave granted.

2. The present appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated April 2, 2004 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in C.W.J.C. No. 4106 of 2004. By the said order, the High Court confirmed the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal "(CAT" for short) Patna Bench, Patna on March 9, 2004 in Original Application No. 307 of 1997.

3. The case of the appellant herein is that she passed her Matriculation Examination from Bihar School Examination Board, Patna in 1983 in Second Division securing 531 marks out of 900 marks. She passed B.A. with Honours from Muzaffarpura in 1st Division in 1988. In the year 1996, she got her name enrolled with the Employment Exchange. She was possessing agricultural land of 10 Kathas having purchased from one Dwarka Prasad by a registered sale deed dated 1st March, 1995. She was also having a residential house in village Khajuhathi.

4. According to the appellant, a post of Extra Departmental Branch Post Master ("EDBPM" for short), Khajuhathi Post Office, Block Manjhi fell vacant as the EDBPM, Post Office, Khajuhathi got promotion. A notification was, therefore, issued for filling of the said vacancy and names of eligible candidates were called from Regional Employment Exchange, Chhapra vide a letter dated 14th October, 1996. According to the appellant, nine names were sent by the Employment Exchange. The appellant was found eligible, qualified and most suitable. Accordingly, the appellant was appointed to the said post by an order dated December 13, 1996. Since then, she is working as EDBPM, Khajuhathi.

5. The appellant stated that though respondent No.6 was neither eligible nor qualified to be appointed as EDBPM, she was aggrieved by the appointment of the appellant and the action taken by the authorities and approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) by filing Original Application challenging the appointment of the appellant. It was contended by respondent No.6 before the CAT that though she was eligible and qualified and was more meritorious inasmuch as she had obtained 584 marks out of 900 marks as against the appellant who had obtained 531 marks at the Matriculate Examination, she was not appointed. It was also her case that she possessed agricultural land as required and proof of having possessed such agricultural land was produced by her. It was, therefore, obligatory for the authorities to consider her case and she ought to have been preferred as against the appellant.

6. The CAT after considering the rival contentions of the parties, allowed the petition holding that the case of the applicant before the CAT (respondent No.6 herein) had been ignored on flimsy grounds keeping aside the merits of the contesting candidates. Resultantly, the order dated 13th December, 1996 was set aside by the CAT and a direction was issued to appoint respondent No.6 (applicant before the CAT) forthwith. The Tribunal also observed that since respondent No.6 (appellant herein) was working since several years, on account of delay in disposal of the Original Application, the authorities were directed to consider if she could be appointed "in the vicinity if and when such vacancy arises" provided she is otherwise fit and eligible for such appointment.

7. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the CAT, the appellant approached the High Court of Patna. The High Court, however, confirmed the decision of CAT and dismissed the petition. Against the said decision, therefore, the appellant has approached this Court.

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Goswami, learned senior counsel for the appellant strenuously urged that respondent No.6 was neither eligible nor qualified to be appointed as EDBPM and she was, therefore, rightly ignored by the authorities. Drawing the attention of the court to the notification issued by the authorities, the counsel submitted that it was absolutely necessary that the candidate must have possessed sufficient

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2004 Supreme(SC) 1156

IMPORTANT POINTOwing of agricultural property and getting the name entered in Revenue Record are two different and distinct things. Mutation entry does not confer right or title to the property.

Cases Referred (2)

IMPORTANT POINT
Owing of agricultural property and getting the name entered in Revenue Record are two different and distinct things. Mutation entry does not confer right or title to the property.