Learned companynsel for respondent number7, who is the main companytesting respondent, on the other hand submitted that the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appellants application both on the ground of limitation as well as on merits.
So far as the question of limitation is companycerned it is true that the appointment of respondent number7 was effected by the authorities on 16th July 1992 and companysequently the application companyld have been filed before the Tribunal within one year from that date.
The appellants annual income was Rs.17,000/ while respondent number7s annual income was Rs.7,500/ .
However according to the Tribunal there were two handicaps from which the appellant suffered.
Instead it was filed in January 1994.
We fail to appreciate how this aspect was at all relevant.
Learned companynsel for respondent number7 also rightly submitted that what was to be explained by the appellant was the delay from August 1993 to January 1994.
Consequently the Tribunal dismissed the appellants application O.A.192 of 194 and companyfirmed the appointment of respondent number7 on the said post.
He submitted that respondent number7 was appointed on 16th July 1992.
If any grievance was to be made about the appointment of respondent number7 by the appellant then the application should have been moved within one year, that is, by 16th July 1993.
In our view the Tribunal was patently in error in dismissing the application of the appellant both on the ground of limitation as well as on merits.
The short question involved in this appeal is as to whether the appointment of respondent number7 as Extra Department Branch Post Master, bypassing the appellant was legally justified or number.
He had obtained 546 marks in the first division in Matriculation examination as companypared to respondent number7 who had passed in third division and got 404 marks.
On merits it was submitted that the authorities had taken a decision on 17th October 1966 to the effect that employment of near relatives in the same office was to be avoided and as appellants companysin brother was already working in the same Post Office, namely, the Branch Post Office, the appellant companyld number be appointed even though he may be more meritorious than respondent number7.
In Class VII examination the appellant had got 468 marks while respondent number7 had got 220 marks.
The delay for the period from August 1993 to January 1994 remained unexplained and was rightly number companydoned by the Tribunal.
The appellant had failed to make out any sufficient cause for number filing the said application in time.
The 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 number7 was rightly appointed as the appellant was disqualified due to the fact that his companysin brother was already working in the same Post Office as Extra Department Delivery Assistant.
But the appellant had already produced before the Tribunal material to indicate that he was number well from 20th August 1993 and he had recovered only by the end of December 1993.
The Tribunal has itself numbered that as companypared to respondent number7 the appellant was more meritorious.
B. Majmudar.
The short question involved in this judgment.
With companysent of learned advocates representing the respective parties the appeal was heard finally and is being disposed of by this judgment.
J. Leave granted.
