Parmanand Singh Vs.
Union of India & Ors. [2009] INSC 180 (28 January 2009)
Judgment
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
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 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.
...........................................J.
(Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)
..........................................J.
Back
