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 criterion laid down by Assistant Director General Training , Department of Post, New Delhi, in Circular No.
Respondent No.5 again approached the CAT by way of A. No.
She approached the Central Administrative Tribunal CAT , Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, by way of filing A. No.
1041 of 1996 assailing the appointment of the appellant on number of grounds.
The CAT allowed the application of respondent No.5 merely on the 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 companyditions companytained in the Service Rules and the Circular governing the selection of the candidate to the post in question.
The officer in charge for District Magistrate, Jaunpur, submitted his Report dated 04.06.1996 to respondent No.
9069 of 2003 filed by the Department was dismissed by the High Court on 03.03.2004 and Writ Petition No.
1 of 1996, which was pending before the CAT, came to be dismissed as wholly infructuous and the interim order was also vacated.
Neelam Pandey, respondent number 5 herein, for companysideration to the post in question.
5 on a misconception of the interim order dated 02.01.1996 earlier passed by the CAT in O.A. No.
4 herein, 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 after selection has been companytinuously discharging her duties and functions as EDBPM since 01.01.1997 till July 2004.
On perusal of the letter dated 18.04.1996 submitted by respondent No.
After judging the companyparative merits including the essential eligibility criterion of possessing adequate means of livelihood from the income, the Competent Authority found the appellant to be more suitable candidate and, accordingly, selected her for appointment to the post.
Pursuant to the demand, the District Employment Officer, Jaunpur, on 13.11.1995 despatched a list of ten candidates including the name of Smt.
The vacant post of EDBPM was numberified to District Employment Officer, Jaunpur, vide Memo No.
Accordingly, on 17.04.2000 respondent No.4 requested the District Magistrate, Jaunpur, to do the needful.
Thereafter, respondent No.
STA/19/4/3 dated 06.12.1993.
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.
PFA 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.
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.
5 was companyfirmed to be Rs.
The Selection Committee did number companysider the name of respondent No.
In response to the letter No.
1 of 1996.
5 on the post within a period of one month from the date of the receipt of the said order.
2 issued directions to respondent No.
Again, the Department and the appellant both filed Review Recall Application before the High Court.
The appellant and the authorities filed separate companynter affidavits in opposition to Application No.
1 of 1996, the appellant was again appointed to hold the post vide Memo dated 01.01.1997 of respondent No.
56142 of 2003 filed by the appellant was dismissed on 19.12.2003.
1000/ .
4 vide his letter dated 18.04.1996 requested the District Magistrate, Jaunpur, to get the inquiry companyducted from the companycerned officers of Tehsil, Shahaganj, relating to character, antecedents, status and sources of income of the appellant and respondent No.
In the meantime, some companyplaint was received in the Office of Post Master General, Allahabad, respondent 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.
He further stated that the applicant does number have any income from agriculture.
4 to get the income certificate of respondent No.
The District Magistrate, Jaunpur, vide his letter dated 13.02.2001 submitted the Report to respondent No.
5 both applied afresh for appointment pursuant to the advertisement besides five more eligible candidates.
Writ Petition No.
The Superintendent of Post Offices, Jaunpur, respondent 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.
We have heard the learned companynsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
2 herein, and after inquiry, respondent No.
5 stood first in the merit list 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 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 number be obliged to go into the question of facts thereby praying for the dismissal of the appeal.
The appellant companytinued on the post till O.A. No.
The CAT issued numberice 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 number to be declared until orders are passed by the Tribunal.
Respondent No.
4 to the District Magistrate, Jaunpur, regarding verification of income and sources of income of respondent No.
and her monthly income is Rs.1,000/ and annual income is Rs.12,000/ .
Arising out of S. L. P. C No.11480 11481 of 2005 Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J. Special leave granted.
Neelam Pandey has fifteen decimal of land in her name, which is unarable and the land is full of rubbles Kankar .
However, on 19.12.1996 the first Application being O.A. No.
9847 of 2004 filed by the appellant was rejected on 28.01.2005.
P.F.A 499 Jaunpur dated 18.04.1996 addressed by respondent No.4 to the District Magistrate, Jaunpur, the Tehsildar Shahganj reported on 22.05.1996 that Smt.
The relevant facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal are as under The post of Extra Departmental Branch Post Master hereinafter referred 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.
On receipt of the appointment letter, the appellant joined the post on 22.06.1996.
1 of 1996 with regard to the selection of the appellant through the District Employment Office terminated her appointment services on 08.10.1996.
Hence, the appellant has filed this appeal challenging the impugned orders of the High Court.
Kiran, appellant herein, holds 32 1/2 130 decimal land in Gata No.
1041 of 1996 filed before the CAT by respondent No.
4 whereby the monthly income of respondent No.
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.
5 verified from the Competent Revenue Authority.
4 with an endorsement in regard to the status and property income per month of the appellant as well as respondent No.
This Civil Appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 19/12/2003 in CMWP No.
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.
56142/2003 and order dated 28.01.2005 in CMRA No.
The appellant and respondent No.
On dismissal of O.A. No.
