1. Dispute over appointment to a postal post based on merit and date of birth verification — challenge to appointment of a lower-ranked candidate. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1327
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH AND SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Alok Kumar Jha – Appellant
Versus
Union of India And Others – Respondent
Civil Appeal No(S). 2267 of 2025 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 4743 of 2022)
Decided on : 11-02-2025
Important Points
The Court balanced merit-based appointment rights with equity for a long-serving employee appointed without fraud. It upheld the appellant's appointment due to 15 years of service while directing the creation of a supernumerary post to accommodate the higher-merit candidate, ensuring justice for both parties.
Subject
Administrative Law - Appointment Disputes
Headnote
(A) Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 - Jurisdiction of Tribunals - Writ Petition - The appeal is against the High Court's order upholding CAT's decision that appointed the respondent retroactively, thereby rejecting the appellant's appointment. The tribunal ruled that the respondent's claimed date of birth is accurate and relevant merit-based criteria were not properly considered. The court also addressed the fairness given the continuous service of the appellant. (Paras 3, 4.6)
(B) Administrative procedure - Appointments - Merit should guide appointments, yet discrepancies in dates and other qualifications must be thoroughly justified. The court found no procedural faults but acknowledged meritocratic adjustments should be made to avoid injustice to either party. (Paras 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was appointed as Gram Dak Sevak despite discrepancies in qualifications compared to the respondent, who scored higher in a later examination. After a CAT ruling and subsequent High Court dismissal of the appellant's claim, the appeal followed.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the appellant's appointment but ordered a new post for the respondent while denying back wages.
Issues: The primary issue considered was the legitimacy of the two candidates' appointments based on merit and, specifically, the resolution of conflicting documentation regarding dates of birth.
Ratio Decidendi: The court balanced the merit of both candidates against procedural fairness, deciding to maintain the appellant's position while enabling the respondent's eligibility through a newly created post.
Result: Appeal allowed in part, with specific adjustments ordered for both parties.
(B) Administrative procedure - Appointments - Merit should guide appointments, yet discrepancies in dates and other qualifications must be thoroughly justified. The court found no procedural faults but acknowledged meritocratic adjustments should be made to avoid injustice to either party. (Paras 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was appointed as Gram Dak Sevak despite discrepancies in qualifications compared to the respondent, who scored higher in a later examination. After a CAT ruling and subsequent High Court dismissal of the appellant's claim, the appeal followed.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the appellant's appointment but ordered a new post for the respondent while denying back wages.
Issues: The primary issue considered was the legitimacy of the two candidates' appointments based on merit and, specifically, the resolution of conflicting documentation regarding dates of birth.
Ratio Decidendi: The court balanced the merit of both candidates against procedural fairness, deciding to maintain the appellant's position while enabling the respondent's eligibility through a newly created post.
Result: Appeal allowed in part, with specific adjustments ordered for both parties.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
administrative law
-
service law
- appointment and recruitment
- supernumerary posts (Para 6)
-
service law
Table of Contents
2. Equity and fairness may justify retaining an appointee in service despite merit discrepancies if they have served long-term without fault, while accommodating the rightful candidate. (Para 5 )
3. Appellant's appointment upheld; supernumerary post to be created for the higher-merit candidate with notional benefits but no back wages. (Para 6 )
4. How does the court balance the rights of a merit-eligible candidate against an appointee who has served for a long duration?
Where an appointee has provided long continuous service without fault or mischief, it may be unjust to remove them. In such cases, the court may uphold the appointment while directing the creation of a supernumerary post to accommodate the merit-eligible candidate. (Para 5 , 6 )
5. Are back wages typically granted when a candidate is appointed to a supernumerary post due to a delayed merit-based claim?
Not necessarily. In this case, while notional service benefits were granted from the date of the original tribunal judgment, the court specifically directed that no back wages be paid to the candidate. (Para 6 )
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 17.01.2022 passed by Patna High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction No. 13602 of 2015 by which the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed and the order dated 07.08.2015 of the Central Administrative Tribunal [CAT], Patna was upheld. The Tribunal had allowed the Original Application filed by Respondent No. 7 Gangesh Kumar Chaudhary and had set aside the appointment of Appellant on the post of Gram Dak Sevak with a direction to authorities to consider Respondent No. 7 for appointment on the post of Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Post Office [GDSBPO].
4. The facts leading to present appeal are summarized as follows:
4.1. In 1991, Respondent No. 7 Gangesh Kumar Choudhary passed the Bihar School Examination with 42% receiving 376 marks out of 900. The certificate issued by Bihar School Education Board recorded his date of birth as 28.02.1976. In 2003, he appeared and passed the Madhyama examination conducted by the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board [BSSB] with significantly higher marks as he received 608 marks out of 700. In the certificate issued on 15.07.2003, the same date of birth i.e. 28.02.1976 has been recorded.
4.2. On 06.5.2008, Respondents issued an advertisement for the post of Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Post Office. Total 180 persons applied for the post, including the Appellant and Respondent No. 7. A merit list of 10 candidates was prepared. Respondent No. 7 was placed at Sr. No. 3, while the Appellant was placed at Sr. No. 7. When they appeared for verification of documents, a discrepancy was found in Respondent No. 7's date of birth. Because, in the letter issued by BSSB on 17.09.2010, the date of birth of Respondent No. 7 was stated to be 28.02.1986. While the certificate issued by BSSB on 15.07.2003, mentioned the date of birth as 28.02.1976. Accordingly, on 20.09.2010, the Inspector of Posts reported the discrepancy to the Superintendent of Posts. On 11.10.2010, Appellant Alok Kumar Jha, was appointed to the GDSBPO position. He joined the same and continues to work on this post.
4.3. On 25.10.2010, Respondent No. 7 filed O.A. No.797 of 2010 before the CAT, Patna, challenging the appointment of Appellant. He stated that he received 608 marks out of 700 while the Appellant had received 588 in the Madhyama Examination. Since he has got higher marks than the Appellant, he should be considered for appointment to the GDSBPO post. The State of Bihar submitted a Written Statement, pointing out the discrepancy in Respondent No. 7's date of birth. On 01.09.2011, BSSB, in response to an RTI request, confirmed Respondent No. 7's date of birth as 28.02.1976. Respondent No. 7 relied on this reply of BSSB. The Appellant on the other hand, argued before the CAT that Respondent No. 7's marks from the Sanskrit Board examination should be disregarded due to his prior matriculation in 1991 and lower marks obtained in that exam.
4.4. The CAT, on 07.08.2015 allowed the Original Application filed by Respondent No. 7 and ruled in his favour. It concluded that Respondent No.7's date of birth is 28.02.1976. It also held that authorities cannot ignore the marks obtained by Respondent No.7 in the BSSB Madhyama examination conducted in 2003. The Tribunal thus quashed and set aside the Appellant's appointment and directed the Respondent authorities to consider Respondent No. 7 for appointment on the post of GDSBPO.
4.5. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the Appellant preferred a Writ Petition (CWJC No.13602 of 2015) with the Patna High Court. The High Court on 03.09.2015 granted a stay on the Tribunal's order. During the pendency of appeal before the High Court, a CBI investigation was directed to be conducted regarding the discrepancy in the date of birth of Respondent No. 7. It is not clear from the record whether the CBI investigation report was produced before the High Court when it heard this matter.
4.6. On 17.01.2022 by
