IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA C.W.P. No.241 of 2002 Date of decision: 5.5.2008 Hoshiar Singh ….. Petitioner -Versus- Union of India & ors. …. Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr.I.D.Bali, Sr.Advocate with Ms. Nishi Goel, Advocate. For Respondents 1&2: Mr. K.B.Khajuria, Central Government Standing Counsel. Deepak Gupta, J (Oral): This writ petition is directed against the order of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal dated 5.2.2002 in OA No. 122-HP/2002 whereby the Original Application filed by the petitioner was rejected. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner had worked as substitute Branch Post Master in Post Office, Barokhari, Sub Tehsil Nihari , District Mandi, off and on, right from January 1998. The said post fell vacant in June, 2000 when the services of the incumbent Shri Lal Chand Kapoor were terminated. The petitioner was thereafter engaged as Gramin - 2 - Dak Sewak in place of Lal Chand Kapoor on 7.6.2000 on temporary basis. He continued to work as such for more than a year. In July, 2001, the respondents initiated the process of filling up the post of Gramin Dak Sewak at Barokhari on regular basis and called for the names of the candidates from the Employment Exchange, Sundernagar. The name of the petitioner was also recommended by the employment exchange. However, the petitioner was not selected and respondent No.3 was selected. Admittedly, the selection of respondent No.3 was made only on account of the fact that he had higher marks in the matriculation examination. The petitioner challenged the appointment of respondent No.3 mainly on the ground that he should have been given some weightage for the experience gained by him while working as substitute and thereafter on temporary basis. The learned Central Administrative Tribunal rejected the contention of the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition. It would be pertinent to mention that we have dealt with a similar matter in CWP No.267 of 1998 titled Ranjit Singh v. Union of India & ors, decided on 17.9.2007. In that case the learned Central Administrative Tribunal held that some weightage must be given to the provisionally appointed extra - 3 - departmental agent for his experience and while making selections, marks obtained in matriculation cannot be the only decisive factor. In fact, in the said case the learned Tribunal has relied upon a judgment of the Full Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal. This view of the learned Tribunal was upheld by us. We are of the view that the marks obtained in matriculation cannot be the sole criteria for appointment as Gramin Dak Sewak. Other aspects such as the higher qualifications of the candidates, their experience, their place of residences etc., must also be taken into consideration while selecting the candidates. While considering this case, we are also not oblivious of the fact that when the writ petition was filed, an order was passed that the petitioner shall be permitted to continue if respondent No.3 has not joined till date. Though respondent No.3 was served, he has not put in appearance till date. The petitioner has continued to function as Gramin Dak Sewak till date. We, therefore, in the circumstances of the case, set aside the order of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal and quash the appointment of respondent No.3 and direct the respondents to again start the process of selection of Gramin - 4 - Dak Sewak at Barokhari after taking into consideration various factors enumerated by us above. Till the fresh selection is made, the petitioner shall be allowed to continue in the said post. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. ( Deepak Gupta ),J. May 5, 2008. ( Kuldip Singh ), J. s.