ORDER

Per: Suresh Kumar Monga, Judicial Member On availability of a post of Extra Departmental Branch Post Master (EDBPM) Keshopura, the applicant herein was appointed on the said post on 27.02.1999 on provisional basis. Thereafter, vide notification dated 23.04.1999, applications were invited by the official respondents to fill up the said post and pursuant thereto, the applicant also applied for the said post. However, vide Memo dated 26.11.1999, one Shri Ram Dhan Mourya was selected by the official respondents to hold the said post. Later on, his services came to be terminated on 17.08.2000 and, therefore, the applicant was again asked to work on the post of EDBPM Keshopura on 28.08.2000 on provisional basis. Again a fresh notification for making selection to said post was issued by the official respondents on 25.08.2000. The applicant again submitted his application pursuant to said notification. However, the official respondents selected respondent no. 4 (Shri Mohan Lal Balai) to hold the said post vide order dated 23.03.2001.

2. Aggrieved by the selection and appointment of respondent no. 4, the applicant preferred the instant Original Application with the assertions that he was more meritorious than respondent no. 4 and the official respondent no. 3 while ignoring his merit has illegally selected and appointed respondent no. 4. The Original Application was allowed by this Tribunal on 22.08.2003 and while setting aside the order Annexure A/1, the official respondents were directed to give appointment to the applicant on the post of EDBPM Keshopura within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order.

3. The aforesaid order dated 22.08.2003 passed by this Tribunal became the subject matter of challenge before the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur at the instance of Union of India in D.B. Civil Writ No. 6520/2003. The matter was finally heard by the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan on 19.04.2018 and after setting aside the order dated 22.08.2003 passed by this Tribunal, the matter was remitted back for decision afresh. It requires to be noticed here that while setting aside the order dated 22.08.2003 passed by this Tribunal, the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan observed that this Tribunal is bound by the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana as to oppose the applicant’s claim, the official respondents had relied upon a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Union of India vs. Premchand (Civil Writ Petition No. 15356 of 1997 decided on 23.03.1998) when the matter was heard and disposed of by this Tribunal on

22.08.2003.

4. While joining the defence, official respondents no. 1 to 3 had filed a joint reply to Original Application and opposed the claim of the applicant on the ground that the applicant was not earning his livelihood from landed or immovable property, which is a mandatory and essential condition for selection to the post of EDBPM. The official respondents further averred that the applicant did not show the source of income in his application form and the income certificate submitted by him with said application was also not certified by the competent authority. A further assertion was also made that as per the applicant’s own disclosure in his application form, his income was from the work of electrical fittings. However, as per the verification report of ASPO (East), Sub Division, Jaipur, the applicant’s income was from the vocation of driving a taxi, which is not the required source of income i.e. from landed / immovable property.

5. Heard learned counsels for the parties.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant was more meritorious than respondent no. 4 (Shri Mohan Lal Balai) and he disclosed his source of income in the application form. He was having immovable property on Patta basis. Therefore, respondent no. 4 could not have been preferred for selection and appointment to the post o