2007 Supreme(SC) 267

2007(3) Supreme 574
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Allahabad High Court)
C.K. Thakker & Lokeshwar Singh Panta, JJ.
Smt. Kiran Singh — Appellant
versus
Union of India & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1021 of 2007
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 11480-11481 of 2005)
Decided on 27-2-2007
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : T.N. Singh, Vivek Singh, Rahul Pandey and Umang Tripathi, Advocates.
For the Respondents : B. Dutta, A.S.G., Ms. Shalini Kumar, V.K. Verma and Goodwill Indeevar, Advocates.

Headnote:SERVICE LAW — Selections — Post of Extra Departmental Branch Post Master (EDBPM) — Eligibility criterion — Appellant and respondent 5 both applied for appointment pursuant to the advertisement besides five more eligible candidates — After judging comparative merits including essential eligibility criterion of possessing adequate means of livelihood from the income, Competent Authority found appellant to be more suitable candidate and selected her for appointment to the post — Appellant and respondent 5 both have qualified the High School Examination by securing first division — Additional criterion 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 — Appellant has fulfilled the essential qualification and required eligibility criterion — Her selection to hold the post was valid — Respondent 5 was not eligible to be appointed on the post for lack of income criterion in terms of the circular — Tribunal was not justified in allowing claim of respondent 5 on sole ground that respondent 5 has secured more marks in High School Examination as against appellant.

       Held : It is not in dispute that the appellant secured 65.80 per cent marks in High School Examination as against respondent No. 5 who secured 66.30 per cent marks in the said examination. The essential educational qualification for the post of ED Sub-Post Masters and ED Branch Post Masters as per the Rules is Matriculation. The Assistant Director General (Training) vide copy of communication No. 17-104/93 Ed & Trg., Department of Post, New Delhi, emphasized that in case of appointment of ED Sub-Post Masters/ED Branch Post Masters, preference may be given to those candidates whose “adequate means of livelihood is derived from landed property or immovable assets” if they are otherwise eligible for appointment and the income of property in the name of the guardians of the candidates will not make them eligible for consideration for appointment as ED agents in the Department. On perusal of the letter dated 18.04.1996 submitted by respondent No. 4 to the District Magistrate, Jaunpur, regarding verification of income and sources of income of respondent No. 5, who is married to Sanjeev Kumar Pandey, resident of Jaigaon Post Office and Tehsil Shahganj, District Jaunpur, the Tehsildar Shahganj in his Report dated 22.04.1996 submitted that Smt. Neelam Pandey has fifteen decimal of land in her name, which is unarable and the land is full of rubbles (Kankar). He further stated that the applicant does not have any income from agriculture. (Para 14)

       In response to the letter No.P.F.A 499 Jaunpur dated 18.04.1996 addressed by respondent No.4 to the District Magistrate, Jaunpur, the Tehsildar Shahganj reported on 22.05.1996 that Smt. Kiran, appellant herein, holds 32 1/2 130 decimal land in Gata No. and her monthly income is Rs. 1,000/- and annual income is Rs.12,000/-. The Selection Committee, on receipt of the testimonials of the candidates who appeared for interview to the post of EDBPM, found the appellant suitable for appointment on the vacant post in ED Branch in terms of the Service Rules for Postal ED Staff and as per the criterion laid down by Assistant Director General (Training), Department of Post, New Delhi, in Circular No. STA/19/4/3 dated 06.12.1993. The appellant after selection has been continuously discharging her duties and functions as EDBPM since 01.01.1997 till July 2004. (Para 15)

       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. (Para 17)