Case Note & Summary
By special leave, the appellant challenged an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, which had dismissed his application O.A. No.192 of 1994 and confirmed the appointment of respondent no.7 as Extra Department Branch Post Master. The dispute arose from a recruitment process in the postal department in which the appellant, a candidate with higher academic marks, was bypassed. Respondent no.7 was appointed on 16 July 1992. The appellant filed the original application in January 1994, and the Tribunal held it barred by limitation and, on merits, accepted the department's reliance on a 1966 circular stating that employment of near relatives in the same office should be avoided because the appellant's cousin brother was already working in the same Post Office as an Extra Department Delivery Assistant. The appellant had obtained 546 marks in first division in Matriculation examination, while respondent no.7 had passed third division with 404 marks; in Class VII the appellant had 468 marks and respondent no.7 220 marks. The appellant's annual income was Rs.17,000 against respondent no.7's Rs.7,500. The Supreme Court examined both limitation and merits. On limitation, the Court noted that the appellant had produced a medical certificate showing continuous illness from 20 August 1993 to 22 December 1993; excluding that period left only minimal delay, which deserved condonation. The Tribunal had therefore erred in rejecting the application on limitation. On merits, the Court considered the 1966 circular and found that it could not rationally disqualify the appellant. The cousin was employed in a lower manual post, and the circular's purpose was to avoid fraud; but mere kinship did not establish any disqualifying risk, and even non-relatives could commit fraud. The Court held that the refusal to appoint a more meritorious candidate solely on that ground was arbitrary and irrational, violating Article 14 of the Constitution. Since the respondent's counsel conceded there was no other disqualification, the Court concluded the rejection was unsustainable. It rejected the argument that respondent no.7's four years of incumbency should protect the appointment, stating that illegal exercise must yield to legal consequences. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the Tribunal's order, quashed respondent no.7's appointment, and directed the authorities to appoint the appellant as Extra Department Branch Post Master in place of respondent no.7 and permit him to run the Post Office on his premises in accordance with rules. No costs were awarded.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Public Employment - Arbitrary Rejection of More Meritorious Candidate - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 14 - Appellant was more meritorious with higher marks and lower income than respondent no.7; authorities rejected him solely because his cousin brother worked as Extra Department Delivery Assistant in the same Post Office. The Supreme Court held that a departmental instruction to avoid employment of near relatives cannot justify denying appointment to a more meritorious candidate when the relative holds a lower manual post; such rejection is arbitrary and irrational, violating Article 14. Held that the appellant's appointment was illegally denied and respondent no.7's appointment was void (Paras not numbered in judgment). B) Limitation - Condonation of Delay - Sufficient Cause by Medical Illness - Not mentioned (one-year limitation period for Tribunal application) - Tribunal dismissed application as barred by limitation because appointment was made on 16 July 1992 and application filed in January 1994. The Supreme Court observed that the appellant had provided a medical certificate showing illness from 20 August 1993 to 22 December 1993; excluding that period, the remaining delay was minimal and deserved condonation in the interest of justice. Held that the Tribunal erred in rejecting the application on limitation (Paras not numbered in judgment).
Issue of Consideration
Whether appointment of respondent no.7 as Extra Department Branch Post Master bypassing the more meritorious appellant was legally justified; whether the application before the Tribunal was barred by limitation.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; Tribunal's order in O.A. No.192 of 1994 quashed; application allowed; appointment of respondent no.7 as Extra Department Branch Post Master quashed; authorities directed to appoint appellant as Extra Department Branch Post Master in place of respondent no.7 and allow him to work as such according to rules, running the Post Office on his premises; no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Article 14 prohibits arbitrary state action in public employment
- merit cannot be disregarded due to non-statutory departmental guideline avoiding near relatives in same office
- cousin's employment as manual delivery assistant not a rational disqualification
- condonation of delay permissible where medical illness explains most of delay
- appointment of less meritorious candidate based on arbitrary ground is void.
