9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (12) TMI 406X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna has taken the view that though the appellant was more qualified to be appointed on the said post respondent No. 7 was rightly appointed as the appellant was disqualified due to the fact that his cousin brother was already working in the same Post Office as Extra Department Delivery Assistant. Consequently the Tribunal dismissed the appellant's application O.A. 192 of 1994 and confirmed the appointment of respondent No. 7 on the said post. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that the aforesaid reasoning adopted by the Tribunal is patently erroneous and consequently the decision of the Tribunal deserves to be set aside. 4. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 7 who is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat date. But the appellant had already produced before the Tribunal material to indicate that he was not well from 20th August 1993 and he had recovered only by the end of December 1993. The Tribunal has noted that there was no explanation of delay from January 1993 to August 1993. We fail to appreciate how this aspect was at all relevant. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 7 also rightly submitted that what was to be explained by the appellant was the delay from August 1993 to January 1994. If that is so the appellant had already produced the Medical Certificate showing his illness from 20th August 1993 to 22nd December 1993. If this period is excluded then the delay in filing the application remains minimal which deserves to be condoned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cap which remains for consideration. In our view it is no handicap at all. The decision of the authorities dated 17th October 1966 reads as under: EMPLOYMENT of near relatives in the same office to be avoided. Instances have come to light where very near relations have been appointed to work as Ed. BPM, Ed. DA or ED Mail Carrier in the same office. As this is fraught with the risk of frauds, etc., this should be avoided. 7. It is difficult to appreciate how pursuant to the said decision the appellant could have been treated as not qualified to be appointed as Extra Department Branch Post Master in the Post Office. His cousin brother was working on a lower post of Extra Department Delivery Assistant. He would be performing a manual wor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ally arbitrary and irrational. The Tribunal was not justified in non-suiting the appellant on merits only on this ground. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 7 submitted that even if the appellant has a good case on merits he should not be disturbed as he is working at his own residence as Extra Department Branch Post Master since about four years and more. That is neither here nor there. Once it is found that the appellant was more meritorious as compared to respondent No. 7 and deserves to be, appointed on merits and his claim was not considered on a totally irrational and arbitrary ground the legal consequences resulting from the voiding of such an illegal exercise must follow. 8. In the result this appeal is allowed. The judgment and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
