PARMANAND SINGHversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

                        [2009] 1 S.C.R. 668


A                      PARMANAND SINGH
                                 v.
                   UNION OF !NOIA AND ORS.
                  (Civil Appeal No. 478 of 2009)
                        JANUARY 28, 2009
B
          [DR. ARIJIT PASA VAT AND ASOK KUMAR
                       GANGULY, JJ.]

       Service Law - Appointment - Claim of appellant
c negatived on ground that he did not file original certificates!
  documents with regard to his qualifications - Respondent
  No. 6 who was appointed had filed all relevant documents -
  Held: Appellant was not in a position to produce the original         ....
  documents as they were with the Institution where he pursued
D his studies - However, continuance of respondent No. 6 not        ~


  disturbed - Direction issued that in case of any vacancy where
  appellant can be adjusted, the same be done by the
  authorities.

       The Tribunal negatived the claim of the appellant for
E appointment to the post of Extra Departmental Branch
  Post Master on two grounds; firstly, his land was
  encumbered and secondly he did not file the original
                                                                        .
  certificates I documents with regard to his qualifications.
                                                                    "
  Appellant filed writ petition against the order. The High
F Court held that even if the first ground that the land was
  not encumbered is accepted, the writ petition was to be
  dismissed as all the relevant documents were not
  produced and respondent No.6 who was appointed had
  filed all the relevant documents.
G
       In appeal to this Court, it was contended by the             ~

  appellant that original documents were with the institution           ,._
  where the appellant was pursuing his studies and such
  institution had clearly certified that the original copy of
H                             668
                PARMANAND SINGH v. UNION OF !NOIA AND ORS.            669

             the mark sheet, admit card, school leaving certificate and      A
             other documents submitted by the students at the time
             of their admission are not returned to them under an
             order passed by the State Government. It was contended
             by the appellant that there was no requirement to
             produce the original documents.                                 B


    .             Disposing of the appeal, the Court

                  HELD: The original documents were not produced
             before the authorities because the documents were with
             the institution and the appellant was not in a position to      c
             produce the original documents. In view of the aforesaid
             it is not necessary to examine whether there is any
             requirement for producing the original documents as
             observed by the departmental authorities. Respondent
    ..,..,   No.6 is continuing in his job. Therefore, without               D
             disturbing his continuance, it is directed that in case
             there is any vacancy in the nearby area where the
             appellant can be adjusted, the same can be done by the
             authorities after following the necessary norms. The
             appellant shall not be entitled to any back wages and the       E
             continuance of Respondent No.6 shall not be disturbed.
.            [Para 5) [671-A-C]

     ,..          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 478
             of 2009.
                                                                             F
                  From the Judgment/Order dated 4.1.2005 of the High Court
             of Judicature at Patna in CWJC No. 16367 of 2004.

                 H.L. Agarwal, A.G. Agarwal and Dr. Kailash Chand for the
             Appellant.
                                                                             G
                 B. Dutta, ASG., Sadhna, Sandhu, B.K. Prasad, V.K.
             Verma, Akhilesh Kumar Pandey and Shalini Chandra for the
             Respondent.

                 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                  H
    670          SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2009] 1 S.C.R.


A         DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.1. Leave granted.

          2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a
    Division Bench of the Patna High Court dismissing the Writ
    Petition filed by the appellant. Before the High Court, challenge
B   was to the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal,
    Patna Bench (in short the 'CAT'). The CAT by the impugned
    order negatived the claim of the appellant for appointment to
    the post of Extra Departmental Branch Post Master (in short
    · EDBPM'). CAT held that the claim made by the appellant
    cannot be accepted on two grounds; firstly, his land was
C   encumbered and secondly he did not file the original certificates
    with regard to his qualifications. Stand of the appellant before
    the High Court was that the conclusions relating to encumbrance
    of land are incorrect as the encumbrance was with regard to
    another plot of land and not relating to the land belonging to
D   the appellant. It was also pointed out that the certificates were
    produced at the time of hearing of the original application before
    the CAT. The High Court held that even if the first ground that
    the land was not encumbered is accepted, the writ petition was
    to be dismissed as all the relevant documents were not
E   produced and respondent No.6 who was appointed had filed
    all the relevant documents. Therefore, the petition was
    dismissed.

        3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
F original documents were with the institution where the appellant
  was pursuing his studies and in fact the institution had clearly
  certified that the original copy of the mark sheet, admit card,
  school leaving certificate and other documents submitted by the
  students at the time of their admission are not returned to them
  under an order passed by the State Government. It is the stand
G of the appellant that there is no requirement to produce the
  original documents.
                                                        I

        4. Learned counsel for the respondent-State supported the
    judgments of the CAT and the High Court.
H
        PARMANAND SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.                671
                         [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
                             -
           5. It is not disputed that the original documents were not A
     produced before the authorities because the documents were
     with the institution i.e. Ramdayalu Singh College, Muzaffarpur
     and the appellant was not in a position to produce the original
     documents, In view of the aforesaid it is not necessary to
     examine whether there is any requirement for producing the B
     original documents as observed by the departmental
     authorities. Respondent No.6 is continuing in his job. Therefore,
+-   without disturbing his continuance, we direct that in case there
     is any vacancy in the nearby area where the appellant can be
     adjusted, the same can be done by the authorities after c
     following the necessary norms. The appellant shall not be
     entitled to any back wages and the continuance of Respondent
     No.6 shall not be disturbed.

         6. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
                                                                     D
     8.8.8.                                   Appeal disposed of.