IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18049 of 2009 1. AMIT KUMAR S/O SHRI BANARSI PRASAD SARVODAY NAGAR, P.S. BEGUSARAI, DISTT. BEGUSARAI Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY- CUM-D.G., DEPTT. OF POSTS, DAK BHAWAN, NEW DELHI 2. THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL, BIHAR CIRCLE, PATNA 3. THE ASSISTANT POST MASTER GENERAL (VIGILANCE) OFFICE OF THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL, BIHAR CIRCLE, PATNA 4. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (STAFF & RECRUITMENT) OFFICE OF THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL, BIHAR CIRCLE, PATNA 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT RMS 'NB' DIVISION, SAMASTIPUR ----------- For the Petitioner :- M/S. Basant Kumar Choudhary, Sr. Advocate & Arvind Kumar II For the Respondents :- Mr. Raghib Ahsan, Asstt. S.G. ---------- 2 23/12/2009 Questioning the correctness and the legal validity of the order dated 28th October, 2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (for short ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 40 of 2009 the petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On a perusal of the order passed by the - 2 - Tribunal, it is evincible that the Tribunal has declined to interfere with the non-selection of the petitioner in O.B.C. category, inasmuch as, the petitioner had not filled up the said column in the form and only mentioned ‘nil’. Mr. Basant Kumar Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged with immense vehemence that the department has been exonerating such actions of the candidates and the Tribunal has acted in an extremely hyper-technical manner. In our considered opinion, when the petitioner had special knowledge with regard to his category, he was obliged under law to fill up the same. Unless he fills up the same, he can only be considered in the general category and not in O.B.C. category. Mr. Choudhary would submit that for such trivial inaction on the part of the petitioner he should not suffer but the aforesaid submission leaves us un-impressed since if a person belonging to O.B.C. category at this stage is allowed to be considered, some one from the said category would suffer which the law does not countenance. Mr. Choudhary has also apprised us that in - 3 - the present case vide Annexure- 2 the petitioner was asked to produce documents in proof of his certificate and, therefore, the department has expressly accepted the same and at this juncture the department cannot take a summersault and put forth a different stand. We are afraid, the said submission does not deserve acceptance as by calling for production of such documents the department would be debarred to put forth its stand in law. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any merit in this writ petition and, accordingly, the same has to pave path of dismissal in limine and, accordingly, we so direct. AMIN (Dipak Misra, CJ.) (Shiva Kirti Singh, J)