ups_00390 — When a selected Applicant for the post of Branch Postmaster of postal department fulfils all conditions required for that post, he cannot be dislodged by a non-selected candidate, especially when he underwent the process without any murmur

When a selected Applicant for the post of Branch Postmaster of postal department fulfils all conditions required for that post, he cannot be dislodged by a non-selected candidate, especially when he underwent the process without any murmur — The chunk discusses a court case where an applicant who was not selected for the post of Branch Postmaster challenges the selection of another candidate (R-4) based on allegations about R-4's accommo... — Facts: The Applicant, pursuant to the advertisement, dated 16-7-2010 applied for the post of Branch Postmaster, Udharna district, Ambedkar Nagar. But he was not selected. Hence he filed this Application for setting aside and posting of the private respondent, R-4 herein and for a further direction to the Director, Postal services R-2 herein, to select the legal candidates who fulfil all the requisite qualifications and conditions. The contention of the Applicant is that, R-4 is not a permanent resident of the said post office and has no accommodation for P.O. to submit his application for the post. The respondents contend that the Applicant , without any reservation applied for that post. In an earlier judgment, the CAT observed that the selected candidate should provide for permanent residence in that place of posting after selection. The Tribunal considered the case and observed that there is no Act or Recruitment Rule for the selection of the post except relevant instructions issued from time to time. Here also, a relevant instruction has been issued, dated 16-12-1993, circulated under covering letter, dated 4-2-1994 under the caption “Income and property qualifications, etc. As per that instruction noted above, the appointment has been made as the R-4 provided the necessary accommodation and possesses adequate means of livelihood. The abovesaid instructions find place at Page 103 of Service Kartavya Compilation of Service Rules for Postal Gramin Dak Sevak, Eleventh Edition, 2010. Hence R-4 fulfilled the required condition for posting as EDBPM in that post office. As regards the complaint that the owner is said to have given accommodation is not correct and denied by the respondents. R-4 is residing in that house where he runs the post office for over a year and there is no complaint of not having house for running the post office. Hence the contention of the Applicant in this connection cannot be upheld. Suman Singh v. CPMG, Lucknow and others [ O.A. No. 249 of 2001 ], in a similar case dealt by a Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal is upheld by High Court. SLP filed in that case is also dismissed. The Applicant is not meritorious and his name did not find a place in the select list based on his merit whereas R-4 is selected based on his merit. This fact is not denied by the Applicant in his rejoinder.