Holding

The appointment of the appellant was valid as she satisfied both the educational qualification and the income‑eligibility criterion, and the CAT and High Court orders quashing her appointment were manifestly erroneous.

Summary

The dispute concerned the appointment of a candidate (the appellant) to the post of Extra Departmental Branch Post Master (EDBPM) in Jaunpur. Both the appellant and respondent No.5 had passed the High School Examination with first division, but the service rules and a 1993 circular required that, besides educational qualification, the candidate must have "adequate means of livelihood derived from landed property or immovable assets". The selection committee found the appellant satisfied this income criterion and appointed her, while respondent No.5, who scored higher marks, did not. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and the Allahabad High Court later quashed the appellant’s appointment, holding that the higher marks should prevail. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the eligibility condition of income from land was a valid and determinative factor, the appellant met it, and the CAT and High Court erred in setting aside her appointment. Consequently, the orders quashing her appointment were set aside and the appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the eligibility criterion of "adequate means of livelihood derived from landed property or immovable assets" is a valid condition for appointment to the EDBPM post under the service rules and the 1993 circular.
Whether a higher score in the High School Examination can override the income‑eligibility requirement.
Whether the CAT and the High Court erred in quashing the appellant’s appointment.
Whether the appointment of the appellant was in compliance with the service rules and the circular.

Subjects

service lawappointmenteligibility criteriaincome from landpostmasterCentral Administrative Tribunalmeritcircularhigh school examinationselection committee

Judgment

A SMT. KIRAN SINGH ..
\' t-= y
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

FEBRUARY 27, 2007

B [C.K. THAKKERAND LOKESHWARSlNGH PANTA,JJ.]

Service Law-Appointment-Post of Extra Departmental Branch Post
Master-Appointment of one candidate-Challenged by the unsuccessfi1/
candidate-Appointment of the successful candidate quashed-Correctness
c of-Held: Candidate was selected in accordance with the service Rules-
Essential qualification and the eligibility criteria of having adequate means
of livelihood derived from landed property or immovable assets was fi1/filled
in comparison to the unsuccessful candidate-Thus, !'!lection to the post was
valid-Order of courts below quashed.
D
The post of Extra Departmental Branch Post Master fell vacant. The
District Employment Officer sent a list of ten candidates including name of
respondent no. 5 for consideration to the post to respondent no 4-
Superintendent of Post Offices. Selection Committee did not consider the name ~
of respondent no. 5 and as such she filed an application. Tribunal permitted .~

E respondent no 4 to carry on the selection process but without declaring the
result until final orders were passed. However, respondent no. 4 invited
applications from General Public. Both appellant and respondent no. 5 applied
afresh. Competent Authority judged the comparative merits including the
essential eligibility criteria of possessing adequate means of livelihood from
the income and selected the appellant and was then appointed to the post.
F
Respondent No. 5 again filed application before the tribunal challenging the
appointment. Services of the appellant were terminated. First application was
dismissed as infructuous. Appellant was again appointed to hold the post. -r·
Thereafter, appointment of the appellant was quashed and respondent no. 5
was directed to be appointed. Appellant challenged the order. Both writ
G petitions and Review/Recall application were dismissed. Hence the present
appeal.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

H 382
.. .-.\
KIRAN SINGH v. U.0.1. [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A. J.j 383

HELO: I.I. The order of the CAT as upheld by the High Court, by which
the application ofrespondent No.5 was allowed and appointment of the appellant
A
"" was set aside is manifestly erroneous and cannot be sustained and as such is
quashed and set aside. !Paras 20 and 2111388-B, Fl

1.2. The appellant and respondent No.5 both have qualified the High
School Examination by securing first division. The eligibility and criterion B
for the selection of the candidate to the post of Extra Departmental Branch
Post Master as per the Service Rules was not only the merit between the two
candidates in High School Examination but the additional criterion was that
the candidate must be one who has "adequate means of livelihood derived from
landed property or immovable assets" if the candidate is otherwise eligible c
for appointment. The instructions governing the eligibility of the candidates
also provide that no weightage will be given for any higher qualification. The
appellant has fulfilled the essential qualification and required eligibility
criterion and as such her selection to hold the post in question was valid
whereas respondent No. 5 was not eligible to be appointed on the post for lack
of income criterion in terms of the Circular. !Para 201 (388-8-01 D

1.3. The CAT allowed the application of respondent No.5 merely on the

.
r
.
sole ground that as respondent No.5 has secured more marks in the High
School Examination as against the appellant but lost sight of the other
eligibility conditions contained in the Service Rules and the Circular
E
governing the selection of the candidate to the post in question. The High
Court in its impugned orders has not recorded independent reasons except to
agree with the order of the CAT. !Para 19) (387-H-B]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1021 of2007.
F
From the final Judgment and Order dated 19.12.2003 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in C.M.W.P. No. 56142/2003.

T.N. Singh, Vivek Singh, Rahul Pandey and Umang Tripathi for the
Appellant.
G
B. Dutta, A.S.G., Shalini Kumar, V.K. Verma and Goodwill Indeevar for
the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, J. I. Special leave granted. H
384 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 3 S.C.R.

A 2. This Civil Appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 19/
12/2003 in CMWP No. 56142/2003 and order dated 28.01.2005 in CMRA No.
9847/2004 of the High Court of Judicature, at Allahabad, whereby the High
...'
Court dismissed the Writ Petition and Review Application filed by the appellant.

The relevant facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal are as under:
B
3. The post of Extra Departmental Branch Post Master (hereinafter
refened to as 'EDBPM') Unchagaon, District Jaunpur, fell vacant on 01.01.1996
due to retirement of Sri Raj Murthi Pandey on attaining the age of
superannuation on 31.12.2005. The vacant post of EDBPM was notified to
C District Employment Officer, Jaunpur, vide Memo No. PF A-490 dated 06.11.1995
issued by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Jaunpur, requesting the former
to sponsor the names of minimum three and maximum five eligible candidates
for appointment to the post within a period of one month. ·Pursuant to the
demand, the District Employment Officer, Jaunpur, on 13.11.1995 despatched
a list of ten candidates including the name of Smt Nee lam Pandey, respondent
D no. 5 herein, for consideration to the post in question.

4. The Selection Committee did not consider the name of respondent
No. 5. She approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Allahabad

E
Bench, Allahabad, by way offiling O.A. No. 1 of 1996. The CAT issued notice
to the opposite parties on 02.01.1996 and by an interim order permitted the
Superintendent of Post Offices to go on with the process of selection, but
..
the result of selection was directed not to be declared until orders are passed
by the Tribunal.

5. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Jaunpur, respondent No. 4 herein,
p instead of resorting to select the candidates from the names sent by the
District Employment Officer, advertised the post on 17.01.1996 by inviting
applications from public in general. The appellant and respondent No. 5 both
applied afresh for appointment pursuant to the advertisement besides five
more eligible candidates. Thereafter, respondent No. 4 vide his letter dated
18.04.1996 requested the District Magistrate, Jaunpur, to get the inquiry
G conducted from the concerned officers of Tehsil, Shahaganj, relating to
character, antecedents, status and sources of income of the appellant and
respondent No. 5. The officer-in-charge for District Magistrate, Jaunpur,
submitted his Report dated 04.06. 1996 to respondent No. 4 with an endorsement
in regard to the status and property income per month of the appellant as well
H as respondent No. 5. After judging the comparative merits including the
KIRAN SINGH v. U.0.1. [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A. .1.J 385
essential eligibility criterion of possessing adequate means of livelihood from A
the income, the Competent Authority found the appellant to be more suitable
candidate and, accordingly, selected her for appointment to the post. On
receipt of the appointment letter, the appellant joined the post on 22.06.1996.

6. Respondent No.5 again approached the CAT by way of 0.A. No. l 041
of 1996 assailing the appointment of the appellant on number of grounds. B
Respondent No. 5 on a misconception of the interim order dated 02.01.1996
earlier passed by the CAT in 0.A. No. 1 of 1996 with regard to the selection
of the appellant through the District Employment Office terminated her
appointment/services on 08.10.1996. The appellant and the authorities filed
separate counter affidavits in opposition to Application No. 1041 of 1996 filed C
before the CAT by respondent No. 5. They stated that the appointment of
the appellant was duly made in accordance with the Service Rules and Circular
dated 06.12.1993 issued by the Competent Authority. However, on 19 .12.1996
the first Application being O.A. No. 1 of 1996, which was pending before the
CAT, came to be dismissed as wholly infructuous and the interim order was
also vacated. D
7. On dismissal ofO.A. No. 1 of 1996, the appellant was again appointed
to hold the post vide Memo dated 01.01.1997 of respondent No. 4.

F• 8. In the meantime, some complaint was received in the Office of Post
Master General, Allahabad, respondent No. 2 herein, and after inquiry, E
respondent No. 2 issued directions to respondent No. 4 to get the income
certificate of respondent No. 5 verified from the Competent Revenue Authority.
Accordingly, on 17.04.2000 respondent No.4 requested the District Magistrate,
Jaunpur, to do the needful. The District Magistrate, Jaunpur, vide his letter
dated 13.02.2001 submitted the Report to respondent No. 4 whereby the F
monthly income of respondent No. 5 was confirmed to be Rs. 1000/-.

9. The appellant continued on the post till O.A. No. 1041 of 1996 was
decided by the CAT on 24.11.2003 and the appointment of the appellant made
on 01.01.1997 to the post of EDBPM was quashed with a direction to the
authorities to appoint respondent No. 5 on the post within a period of one G
month from the date of the receipt of the said order.

10. Being aggrieved by the order of the CAT dated 24.11.2003, the
Department and the appellant filed two separate writ petitions in the High
Court of Judicature, Allahabad, at Allahabad. Writ Petition No. 9069 of2003
filed by the Department was dismissed by the High Court on 03.03.2004 and H
386 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 3 S.C.R.

A Writ Petition No. 56142 of 2003 filed by the appellant was dismissed on
.....
19.12.2003. Again, the Department and the appellant both filed Review/Recall h:
Application before the High Court. From the records, it appears that the •
Review/Recall Application filed by the Department is still pending before the
High Court, whereas the Review/Recall Application No. 9847 of2004 filed by
the appellant was rejected on 28 .0 I .2005.
B
11. Hence, the appellant has filed this appeal challenging the impugned
orders of the High Court.

12. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material on record.
c
13. Mr. T.N. Singh, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant,
contended that the appellant was selected by the Competent Authority strictly
following the existing Rules and Circular dated 06.12.1993, which provides one
of the eligibility criteria or preference of income and ownership of property.
However, the CAT as well as the Division Bench of the High Court have
D
committed a grave and manifest error of law quashing the appointment of the
appellant for no valid reasons. He submitted that the appointment of the
appellant by the respondents/authorities on 01.01.1997 was in fact not
challenged by respondent No. 5 before the CAT, yet her selection was set
.,
aside and respondent No.5, being not eligible, has been ordered to be ,,
E appointed against the post, therefore, the order has resulted in miscarriage of
justice to the appellant.

14. Per contra, the learned counsel for the contesting respondent No.
5 has sought to support the judgment of the Division Bench of the High
Court to contend that admittedly, respondent No. 5 stood first in the merit list
F having secured 66.30 per cent marks in the High School Examination as
against the appellant who secured 65.80 per cent marks and that being the
)c-
admitted position, the CAT has rightly quashed the appointment of the
appellant, which order has been upheld by the High Court and this Court in
exercise of its powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India will not
G be obliged to go into the question of facts thereby praying for the dismissal
of the appeal.

15. Mr. B. Dutta, learned ASG appearing on behalf of other respondents,
supported and adopted the arguments of the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant and contended that the appellant was selected by the
H Selection Committee in accordance with the Rules/Instructions governing the
KIRAN SINGH v. U.0.1. [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA. J.] 387
. service conditions of the post in question and, therefore, the order of the CAT A
as well as the High Court are manifestly erroneous and not sustainable.

16. We have given our careful consideration to the respective contentions

- of the respective parties.

17. It is not in dispute that the appellant secured 65.80 per cent marks B
in High School Examination as against respondent No. 5 who secured 66.30
per cent marks in the said examination. The essential educational qualification
for the post of ED Sub- Post Masters and ED Branch Post Masters as per
the Rules is Matriculation. The Assistant Director General (Training) vide
copy of communication No. 17-104/93 Ed & Trg., Department of Post, New
Delhi, emphasized that in case of appointment of ED Sub-Post Masters/ED C
Branch Post Masters, preference may be given to those candidates whose
"adequate means of livelihood is derived from landed property or immovable
assets" if they are otherwise eligible for appointment and the income of
property in the name of the guardians of the candidates will not make them
eligible for consideration for appointment as ED agents in the Department. On D
perusal of the letter dated 18.04.1996 submitted by respondent No. 4 to the
Uistrict Magistrate, Jaunpur, regarding verification of income and sources of
income ofrespondent No. 5, who is married to Sanjeev Kumar Pandey, resident
... of Jaigaon Post Office and Tehsil Shahganj, District Jaunpur, the Tehsildar
Shahganj in his Report dated 22.04.1996 submitted that Smt. Neelam Pandey
has fifteen decimal of land in her name, which is unarable and the land is full E
of rubbles (Kankar). He further stated that the applicant does not have any
income from agriculture.

18. In response to the letter No.P.F.A 499 Jaunpur dated 18.04.1996
addressed by respondent No.4 to the District Magistrate, Jaunpur, the Tehsildar F
Shahganj reported on 22.05.1996 that Smt. Kiran, appellant herein, holds 32

-
1/2 130 decimal land in Gata No. and her monthly income is Rs. l,000/- and
annual income is Rs.12,000/-. The Selection Committee, on receipt of the
testimonials of the candidates who appeared for interview to the post of
EDBPM, found the appellant suitable for appointment on the vacant post in
ED Branch in terms of the Service Rules for Postal ED Staff and as per the G
criterion laid down by Assistant Director General (Training), Department of
Post, New Delhi, in Circular No. STA/19/4/3 dated 06.12.1993. The appellant
after selection has been continuously discharging her duties and functions
as EDBPM since 01.01.1997 till July 2004.

19. The CAT allowed the application of respondent No.5 merely on the H
388 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 3 S.C.R.

A sole ground that as respondent No.5 has secured more marks in the High

•
School Examination as against the appellant but it has lost sight of the other
eligibility conditions contained in the Service Rules and the Circular governing •
the selection of the candidate to the post in question. The High Court in its
impugned orders has not recorded independent reasons except to agree with
the order of the CAT.
B
20. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view the order of
the CAT which has been affirmed by the High Court is manifestly erroneous
and cannot be sustained. The appellant and respondent No.5 both have
qualified the High School Examination by securing first division. The eligibility
c and criterion for the selection of the candidate to the post of EDBPM as per
the Service Rules was not only the merit between the two candidates in High
School Examination but the additional criterion was that the candidate must
be one who has "adequate means of livelihood derived from landed property
or immovable assets" if the candidate is otherwise eligible for appointment.
The instructions governing the eligibility of the candidates also provide that
D no weightage will be given for any higher qualification. The appellant has
fulfilled the essential qualification and required eligibility criterion and as such
her selection to hold the post in question was valid whereas respondent No.
5 was not eligible to be appointed on the post for lack of income criterion in
terrns of the Circular.
.,
. )

E 21. In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order of the
High Court dated 19.12.2003 passed in CMWP No.56142 of 2003 and order
dated 28.01.2005 recorded in CM Review/Recall Application No.9847 of2004
are quashed and set aside. As a result thereof, the order dated 24.11.2003 of
the CAT in OA No. I041 of 1996 by which the application of respondent No.5
F has been allowed and appointment of the appellant has been set aside, shall
also stand quashed and set aside.

22. In the result, this appeal is allowed accordingly. Parties shall bear
their own costs.
:---
-
G N.J. Appeal allowed.