CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.4686 OF 2007 (In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) ****** 1. The Union of India through the Secretary-cum-Director General, Department of Posts, New Delhi. 2. The Postmaster general, Northern Region, Muzaffarpur. 3. The Director of Postal Services, Northern Region, Muzaffarpur. 4. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Samastipur Division 5. The Sub Divisional Inspector of Post Offices, West Sub Division, Samastipur. ----------- Petitioners. Versus 1. Devendra Prasad son of Sri Bishwanath Singh, resident of village and P.O. Bathua, P.S.Pusa, Dist. Samastipur. ---------Respondent ****** For the Petitioners : Mr. Sarva Deo Singh (C.G.C.) For the Respondent : Mr. Jayant Kumar Karn, Advocate. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR KATRIAR THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ****** Kishore K.Mandal,J. Petitioners have challenged the legality of the order dated 26th May, 2005, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short ‘Tribunal’) in O.A.No. 76 of 2005 (Devendra Prasad vs. The Union of India & Ors.). 2. Relevant facts essential for the disposal of the writ petition may be indicated. That the post of GDS MD/MC at Branch Post Office Bathua, in the District of Samastipur, fell vacant due to deputation of the permanent incumbent of the said office to Army Postal Service. To fill up the said vacancy, the post 2 was notified through the Employment Exchange in the month of July 2001. It was found the said post was reserved for O.B.C. category. Several applicants, including the respondent herein applied for the post. After verification of document respondent was appointed as GDS MD- cum- GDS MC, Bathua, Branch Office, by the competent authority vide order dated 27.09.2001. Said appointment of respondent was reviewed by the Director, Postal Services, Northern Region, Muzaffarpur. A show-cause notice dated 30-06-2003 (Annexure-1), was served upon the respondent indicating that he had neither submitted O.B.C. certificate from the competent authority in the prescribed proforma nor he had submitted documents of title relating to property in support of his annual income. The respondent filed his show- cause, stating therein that he had submitted the caste certificate issued by the Sub Divisional Officer, Samastipur dated 31-07- 1995. He, however, claimed that the proof of landed property was not mandatory, therefore, the same was not furnished. The authorities vide communication dated 17.02.2004 (Annexure-2), directed him to furnish caste Certificate issued by the District Magistrate/ Deputy Commissioner. The respondent furnished the said certificate issued by the District Magistrate, Samastipur. Thereafter it appears that few opportunities was/were given to him to submit documents of title exclusively in his name which he failed to furnish. Accordingly the authorities terminated his service by communication dated 11-01-2005 (Annexure-5), leading to the filing of original application bearing no. 76 of 2005, 3 the same was allowed hence the writ petition. 3. We have carefully gone through the impugned order and the materials placed on record. It appears that the Postal authorities themselves issued different communications instructing the respondent to furnish necessary documents relating to caste status as well as landed property. Those documents appears to have been furnished. On consideration of the entire materials on record, the learned Tribunal has allowed the original application with a direction to immediately reinstate the respondent herein to the post he was given in the appointment letter. 4. While assailing the validity of the order, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that although the certificates relating to caste status was/were furnished but the documents relating to title of the land was not exclusively in the name of the respondent. This aspect of the matter has been dealt with by the learned Tribunal in paragraph nos. 6, 7 and 8 of its order which reads as under:- “6. Though learned counsel for the respondents justified the termination order on the ground of the applicant’s failure to file any document showing landed property in his name, the learned counsel for the applicant drew our attention to official memorandum issued through DG[Posts] No.17-366/91-ED-Trg.,dated 26.05.1995. In that letter certain queries were made to the competent authority and those were answered. Our attention was drawn to query no.6 and its clarification to be found at page 81 of Swamy’s Compilation of Service Rules for Postal ED Staff, 8th Edition. Here, following query was made: “Query 6:- Whether the condition of adequate means of livelihood should be insisted upon while considering candidates for appointment in ED categories other than EDBPM/EDSPM as stipulated in this office multiple letter No. 17- 4 104/91 ED & Trg., dated 06.12.1993, or this recruitment may be restricted to candidates seeking appointment as EDBPM/EDSPM as hither- tobefore. Clarification:- The fulfillment of the conditions of income/property should be restricted to candidates seeking appointment as EDBPM/EDSPM. In case of candidates seeking appointment to categories other than EDBPM/EDSPM, a declaration will continue to be obtained about vocation and private income as stipulated in this Office Letter No. 43-66/Pen., dated 17.10.1966.” 7. The learned counsel for the respondents did not deny that this clarification is still good. 8. Therefore, a mail deliverer is not required to own property in his own name as a requisite for his appointment as such.” 5. We are fully in agreement with the view taken by the learned Tribunal. We do not find merit in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed. I agree S.K.Katriar, J. Patna High Court, Dated the 23rd April,2010 Sym/ NAFR (Kishore K. Mandal, J.) (S.K.Katriar,J)