Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 478 OF 2009
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.9440 of 2005)
Parmanand Singh ....Appellant
Versus
Union of India and Ors. ....Respondents
J U D G M E N T
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of
the Patna High Court dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellant.
Before the High Court, challenge was to the order passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench (in short the ‘CAT’). The CAT by the
impugned order negatived the claim of the appellant for appointment to the
post of Extra Departmental Branch Post Master (in short ‘EDBPM’). CAT
held that the claim made by the appellant cannot be accepted on two
grounds; firstly, his land was encumbered and secondly he did not file the
original certificates with regard to his qualifications. Stand of the appellant
before the High Court was that the conclusions relating to encumbrance of
land are incorrect as the encumbrance was with regard to another plot of
land and not relating to the land belonging to the appellant. It was also
pointed out that the certificates were produced at the time of hearing of the
original application before the CAT. The High Court held that even if the
first ground that the land was not encumbered is accepted, the writ petition
was to be dismissed as all the relevant documents were not produced and
respondent No.6 who was appointed had filed all the relevant documents.
Therefore, the petition was dismissed.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the original
documents were with the institution where the appellant was pursuing his
studies and in fact the institution had clearly certified that the original copy
of the mark sheet, admit card, school leaving certificate and other
documents submitted by the students at the time of their admission are not
2
returned to them under an order passed by the State Government. It is the
stand of the appellant that there is no requirement to produce the original
documents.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent-State supported the judgments of
the CAT and the High Court.
5. It is not disputed that the original documents were not produced
before the authorities because the documents were with the institution i.e.
Ramdayalu Singh College, Muzaffarpur and the appellant was not in a
position to produce the original documents. In view of the aforesaid it is
not necessary to examine whether there is any requirement for producing the
original documents as observed by the departmental authorities. Respondent
No.6 is continuing in his job. Therefore, without disturbing his continuance,
we direct that in case there is any vacancy in the nearby area where the
appellant can be adjusted, the same can be done by the authorities after
following the necessary norms. The appellant shall not be entitled to any
back wages and the continuance of Respondent No.6 shall not be disturbed.
6. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
3
…………………………………….J.
(Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)
……………………………………J.
(ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)
New Delhi,
January 28, 2009
4