9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Appointment of respondent as Extra Department Branch Post Master bypassing the appellant. Analysis: The judgment revolves around the legality of appointing respondent No. 7 as Extra Department Branch Post Master, bypassing the appellant. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna upheld respondent No. 7's appointment, citing the appellant's disqualification due to his cousin brother already working in the same Post Office. The appellant challenged this decision, arguing that the Tribunal's reasoning was erroneous. The appellant contended that the Tribunal's decision was flawed both on grounds of limitation and merits. Respondent No. 7's counsel argued that the application should have been filed within one year of respondent No. 7's appointment in July 1992, but the appellant filed it in January 1994. However, the appellant provided evidence of illness from August to December 1993, justifying the delay. The Court held that the delay was minimal and deserved to be condoned in the interest of justice. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's superior qualifications compared to respondent No. 7. The appellant had higher marks in examinations and a higher annual income. The only hurdles identified by the Tribunal were the cousin brother's employment in the same office and the issue of limitation. The Court found the limitation issue resolved and deemed the cousin brother's employment as an irrational ground for disqualification. The Court criticized the decision to disqualify the appellant based on his cousin brother's role as a Peon in the Post Office, considering it arbitrary and irrational. The Court emphasized that such a ground cannot be sustained under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The judgment concluded by allowing the appeal, quashing respondent No. 7's appointment, and directing the authorities to appoint the appellant as the Extra Department Branch Post Master. The Court emphasized that the appellant's merit should have been the sole consideration, and the irrational grounds for disqualification should not have been upheld by the Tribunal.
|
