—•^ t IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) WRIT PETITION No. ^2s^0 /2005 PETITIONER .j^/ ^y Umesh Kumar Singh, aged about 33 years, S/o Tapeshwari Singh, R/o Village Bhandhapa, Post Chap Distt. Rohtas. Bihar VERSUS I. Union of India Through its Secretary, Ministry of Communications Department of Post, New Delhi ,2. The Chief Post Master General, M.P. Postal Circle, Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal (M.P.) 3. The Postmaster General, Raipur Region Raipur (C.G.) / 4. The Senior Supt.. of Post Offices, Durg Division Bhilai Distt. Durg (C.G.) , 5. Bihar Intermediate Shiksha Parisad, through its Principal Patna, Bihar WRIT PETITION UNDBRARTICLE 227 OF THB CONSTITUTION OF INDIA RESPONDENTS ^.•^/> .^?y/ ^^/ ^^ ^Y \^ ./.^y "'.^y "' '7-;- ,-.. %^tLC7^ -."^':S'&fi HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR Divisioa Beach: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri SB Hoa9ble Shri Maniadra Mohaa Shrivastava, JJ. Writ Petition No. 3340 of 2005 '^- / PETITIONER Uinesh Kuniar Siagh Versus RESPONDENTS: Union oflndia aiid others, Order for consideration Sd/- ManindraMohanShrivastava Judge H^n^leShriSatishlLAj^m^^^ J ^/l^. 1 Sd/- Satish K. Agmhotri Judge Post for pronouncenieut of Order 4^ ,2-2010 Sd/- ManindraMohanShrivastava Judge HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Division Bench: Hon»bleShri Satish K. Agnihotri SB Hois?ble SSiri Maaiadra Mohaii Shrivastava, JJ. PETITIONBR Writ Petition No. 3340 of 2005 Umesh Kumar Siagh Versus 3?£SPONDENTS: Union oflndia and otliers, Writ Petition under Article 227 oftfae Coastitutioa of India Present: Shri Parag Kotecha, counsel for fhe petitioner. Shri Bhishnia Kiager, Standiag Counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4. None for respondent No,5, ORDER (Passed onjfe'ebmaiy, 2010) s Per Maaiadra Mohaa Shrivastava, J. 1. The petitioner has filed fhis petition uuder Article 227 ofthe Constitution of India aggrieved by the order dated 23.2.2005 (Annexiire P-2) passed by the Central Admmistot'ative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench (Circuit Court Bilaspur) (henceforth "the Tribunal") in O.A. No.701/2003 by which origmal application filed by fhe petitioner has been dismissed. 2, Relevmit facts of the case necessary for adjudication of the controversy iavolved in. the petition are tliat - the petitioner was iaitiaUy appoin.ted on fhe post of Postal Assistaiit after due selection aad haviag been found successful was appoiiited. But later on, caadidature of the petitioner along wifti other persous was caaceUed ou the ground that the petitioner failed to subniit rcquisite testhnonials withisi the tiiae prescribed. Aggrieved by the said order aa origiaal appUcation was filed before fhe Tribunal registered as O.A. No. 215/1996 which was decided on 27.9.1999 in favour of tlie petitioner directing respondents to issue provisional appoiatment letter to fhe petitioner wifhia 30 days subject to petitioner agam faciag medical examiaation aad police venfication, if necessaiy. It was ordered fhat fhe appoiataient letter be issued provisionally aad regular appoio.toaient to foUow subject to police venfication and inedical exanxuiation. The petitioner gave his jomiag on 10,11.1999 at Durg Head Post Office on the post of Postal Assistaat. On 15.10,2001, respondents deinanded enUstment numiber froin fhe petitioner, which is allotted to every caadidate who appeared for fhe exammation of iatermediate (10+2). Petitioner mitiaUy siibmitted that because of hoUdays he was not able to procure the enlistment number. Thereafter, he submitted his enUstnient number vide letter dated 25.1.2002. However, with effect from 5.11.2001 services ofthe petitioner were discontiaued on fhe purported ground of non-supplyiag of enlistment number. The act of discontinuaace of petitioner's services was assafcled by fhe petitioner by flliag petition before fhe Centoral Adiaiaistrative Tribuxial O.A. No, 701/03. The petitioner assailed fhe terinuiation by subiaittmg tiiat he had approached fhe Tribunal earlier agamst fhe respondents" action of caiiceUation of his selection aad appomtment, aiid ia fhat Origiaal AppUcation No.215/96, the Tribunal passed aa order on 27.9.1999 allowiag fhe appUcation by recordiag a fmdiag that fhere was nothmg against fhe appUcaiit aad direction was issued to the respondents to issue provisional appomtooient letter which was subject only to medical exammation aiid poUce verification. Tlie aforesaid order attamed fmality and therefore the respondents were under aa obUgation to issue provisional order of apponitcieut aad then to grant him regular appoiatment subject only to poMee verification & inedical exaniHiation aiid no otiier scrutiny. It was also subinitted fhat ia the earUer round of Utigation, fhe Tribunal held fhat fh.e plea of respondents that appUcaat did not fiU proper form caanot be sustamed ia law aad fhe objection was overruled aad upon scnitmy it was found fhat fhe applicaat had produced all fhe papers wifhia thne and fhe appUcations were in. proper form. It was also stressed tliat m fhe earMer proceediags Le. O.A. No.215/1996, respondents fheinselves subiuitted before fhe Tribunal tih.at they had verified aU tiie papers aad found that fhey are correct and produced aU fhe relevaat records to substantiate fhe contention. Respondents were fherefore estopped frora agaia makiiig any iaquiry aad discontinue the petitioner's ser^ices. In fhe subinission of learaed counsel for fhe petitioner such impugned actiou of fhe respondents was nofhiag but fhe act of overrulmg the final aad concluded order passed in his favour in O.A. No.215/1996, However, by impugiied order dated 23.2.2005, Tnbunal upheld tiie tenniaation and disinissed origisial appUcation. 3. Assaltmg the impugned order of fh.e Tribunal, it is subiiiitted that even though he was uot required in view of tlie order passed by tlie Tribunal and regular appoiatoient was niade subject only to police veii&cation aad inedical examiriation, yet fhe respondents denianded flie petitioiier to provide enlistsilent nuniber which also was subinitted by the petitioner vide his letter dated 25.1.2002 (Annexure A-3) filed along wifh origmal appMcation (Annexurc, P-1). It has been contended fhat witiiout conducting any inquiry aud wifhout aay opportunity actmg in violation of fhe order passed by fhe Tribunal earUer on 27.9.1999 in O.A. No.215/1996, respondents lUegally discontmued fhe petitioner fromi services after 5.11.2001. Accordiag to him tiie leamed Tribunal ia reopeniag fhe whole issue, which had attamed finality, has exceeded its jurisdiction aad fherefore, fhe impugned order is unsustainable m law. 4. Per contra, respondents have supported fhe order ofTribunal by siibmittihag that ia tlie iaquiry niade by fhe respondents., fhe origiaal niark sheet issued by Bihar Intermediate Education Council, Pataa (B,I.E,C,) was foiuid scratched/overwritten at his name aad marks sheet verification report received from B.I.E.C., Patna vide letter No. 1064/ST/96 dated 10.6.1996 fouud inark sheets doubtful. It is farther subxuitted fhat upon fi.irther iaquisy zaade at different level aad subimssion of report dated 22»9,2001 (Annexure R-3), verification report (Annexure R-4) aad report dated 31,3.2004 (Annexure R-7), origiaal certificate produced by fhe petitioner were found to be doubtful, fherefore the petitioner was discontinued aad there is no illegality ia fhe action and the Tribunal has coniniitted no error ia dismissmg tiie appUcation fUed by fhe petitioner. 5, We have considered nval contentions aad perused the recoids ofthe case. 6. The petitioner along with one Diaesh Kuniar Siagh filed an orignial application No,215/1996 beforc fhe Tribunal at Jabalpur challeuging the order dated 16.5.1995 by which fheir selections were canceUed. Vide order dated 27U1 September, 1999, fhe aforesaid origmal application filed by the petitioner aud Diaesh Kuinar Siagh was allowed by fhe Tribunal. The Tribunal m fhat case held that tlie matter was taken-up for due consideration beforc the Tribunal aad it was decided earUer in a similar situation fh.at as aU tlie requisites were filed wifti the applicatiou, the plea of respondents that the appUcaats did not fiU proper form caanot be sustaiaed ia law aad objection was overruled. Itwas further recorded that on scrutmy it was found that fhe appUcant had produced all fhe papers withia tmie aad the applications were iii proper fona. 7, It is extremely relevaat to mention that ia the earUer round ofUtigation, the Tribunal has held in. para-2 ofits order as under:- "2,*...., The learaed counsel for the respondents subinitted fh.at tiiey have verified all fhe papers aad found fhat they were correct aad produced atl fhe relevant records to substaatiate their contentions/' Thereafter fhe Tribunal proceeded to record that it did not fiad aiiyfhiiig agamst the petitiouer aad proceeded to atlow the origiaal appUcation. Respondente were directed to issue provisional appoiataient letter withia 30 days subject to fhe applicant faciag medical examination and police verificatiou, if necessary, It was also ordered fhat regular appoiatraent order wUl foUow subject to poUce verification and Hiedical exaBiniation. 8. It is not disputed before us fhat fhe aforesaid order passed by the Tribunal attaliied fraaiity as respoudents did not assail the aforesaid order either by way of filmg aay rcview petition or chatlenging it beforc aiiy ofher Foinm to which the Tribunal is subordiaate, 9, In view offhis adniitted position, parties were bound by fhe said order of Tribunal, It was not open for fhe respondeats to again erabark upon aay iaquny with regard to correctaess aad genuiaeness of various certificates subniitted by fhe appUcaat before fhein, as respondents fhexnselves had submitted beforc fhe Tribunal m 0,A. No.215/1996 fhat fhey had venfied atl the papers aad found that they were correct aad had also produced aU rclevaat records to substantiate fhe same. 10, The respondents' contention fhat after fhe oi-der was passed by fhe Tribunal, directing respondents to graat provisional appoiatoaient to fhe petitiouer, a fresh mquiry was made with regard to fhe genuineness of the testmionials subniitted by fhe petitioner and fhey were found to be doubtful aiid, fherefore, it was fuUy justified on the part of respondeuts to discontinue the petitioner froin fhe service are whoUy unacceptable, as fhe respondents are bound by fhe order passed by the Tribuual earlier on 27.9.1999 m O.A. No.215/1996. Haviag not challenged tfae said order of the Tribunal, it was not open for fhe respondents to initiate fresh inquiry towards exasiuiiation aad venfication of genuiaeness of testunonials subniitted earlier by fhe petiUoner. Respondents were only required to subject fhe petitioner to inedical examination aad poUce verificatiou, if necessaiy. It is not fhe case of the respondents fhat petitioner was eifher found medicaUy unfit or aa adverse police verification report was received so as to disentiUe fhe petitioner to get regular appointment. 11. It is seen fhat even fhough fhe matter was concluded m fhe earUer round of Utigation subject only to niedical exaoiiaation aad poUce verification, respondents without aufhority started deinaadiiig vadous mformatiou Uke enlistment uumber which too was submitted by the petitioner vide letter dated 25, 1,2002. Pursuaat to fhe order passed by fhis Court on 29.7,2005, directmg fhe petitioner to submit his raark sheet along wifh affidavit, petitioner has filed affidavit on 16.8.2005 ia which it has been mentioned fhat aU the origmal certificates were submitted before fhe respondenfs No.4 ia compliaiice oftheir order dated 6.10.1999. Petitioner has also filed fhe acknowledgiiient of receipts, Annexure P-3 aad P-4 before ^-s^ .!'f^ ^ .„ '^ \^ ^-^ ^^ESS^ this Court, Moreover, respondent No.5 ia tihieir retura along with affidavit has adniitted fhat twice inark sheet of fhe petitioner was verified aad fhe same was found to be genuiae. 12, Froin tiie order iinpugned passed by tlie Tribunal, we find that the Tribunal acted beyond its jurisdiction ia makiag fresh iaquiry iato a dispute which had already been concluded earUer by fhe Tribunal. The Tribunal faUed to appreciate fhat ia view of the order passed by it earUer on 27.9.1999 ia O.A .No.215/1996, it was not open for the respondents to reopen fhe iaquiry aad discontmue the petitioner from services on fhe ground fhat testitnonials were found doubtful, as fhey tiiemselves subinitted before fhe Tribunal fhat tiiey had verified all fhe papers aad found that fhey are correct aad had also produced aU the relevaiit records to substaatiate fheir contention. The Tribunal therefore was not correct in reopeniag the concluded issue and coinmitted serious error ofjurisdiction ia passiag the impugned order. The isiipugned order passed by fhe Tribunal therefore is found to be unsustaiaable ia law and caanot be sustained, 13, Consequentiy, fhe in.staatwrit petition is allowed. Iinpugued order dated 23.2.2005 passed by fhe Tribunal is set aside aad origio.al appUcation is aUowed.It is directed th.at iffhe petitioner has been found niedicaUy fit aiid there is no adverse poUce verification report, he shall be reiastated forfhwith with. all consequential benefits ia terms of fhe order dated 27.9.1999 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.215/1996. 14, No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Sinha