om:5-cl-2010-jan — Appointment to Appellant as Extra-Departmental Agent (EDA) refused, as the Original Certificate was not produced even though the attested copies of the certificates were produced as original certificates were locked up in the educational institution where he was pursuing his studies, was set aside and directed to appoint him elsewhere nearby without disturbing the set up prevailing at that point of time

Appointment to Appellant as Extra-Departmental Agent (EDA) refused, as the Original Certificate was not produced even though the attested copies of the certificates were produced as original certificates were locked up in the educational institution where he was pursuing his studies, was set aside and directed to appoint him elsewhere nearby without disturbing the set up prevailing at that point of time — This chunk is from an appeal case (C.A. No. 478 of 2009) concerning an appellant's request to be appointed as an Extra-Departmental Agent, which was denied due to non-production of original education... — Facts : The Patna Bench of the CAT negatived the prayer of the Applicant to appoint him as Extra-Departmental Branch Postmaster (EDBPM) on the ground that his landed property was encumbered and original certificates of Educational qualification were not filed. The Appellant argued before the High Court in his appeal the land encumbered is not the same now indicated in his application and original certificates were produced at the time of hearing before CAT. The High Court dismissed the appeal on ground of not producing the original certificates at the relevant time even though the land property is accepted. Respondent No. 6 produced the required documents and hence his appointment cannot be disturbed. Hence this appeal is filed before the Apex Court. The Appellant submitted that the original certificates were locked up in the educational institution where he was studying and the educational institution certified the copies of the documents submitted by him at the relevant time. Hence there is no need to produce the original documents. The Respondents supported the lower court judgments. Hearing both sides it was held: