ARUN KUMAR NAYAK Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(SC)-2006-9-49
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ORISSA)
Decided on September 20,2006

ARUN KUMAR NAYAK Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

STATE OF BIHAR VS. UPENDRA NARAYAN SINGH [LAWS(SC)-2009-3-191] [RELIED UPON]
DEBANDRA NATH MONDAL VS. RATAN KUMAR DAS [LAWS(CAL)-2008-2-80] [REFERRED TO]
RATHA GIRI VS. STATE OF W B [LAWS(CAL)-2007-10-40] [REFERRED TO]
SANTILATA PANDA VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2022-9-149] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS. S S SOMASUNDRAM PERIYA PULLYAMPATTI VILLAGE [LAWS(MAD)-2008-3-351] [REFERRED TO]
TAPASI PATI (PANDA) VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2011-8-199] [REFERRED TO]
PURNENDU BISWAS VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2008-5-56] [REFERRED TO]
K. GUNAVATHI VS. V. SANGEETH KUMAR [LAWS(SC)-2014-3-13] [REFERRED TO]
THE DIRECTOR CHENNAI VS. M.RAJA [LAWS(MAD)-2015-12-47] [REFERRED TO]
S SRINIVASALU VS. MANAGEMENT OF BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD [LAWS(MAD)-2007-10-157] [REFERRED TO]
SATVIR SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-1-205] [REFERRED TO]
VINOD SUBHASHRAO SHINDE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2007-7-119] [REFERRED TO]
BISWAJIT DAS VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2011-9-171] [REFERRED TO]
ADWAITYA BERA VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2012-1-107] [REFERRED TO]
GAYA NATH RAJBANSHI VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2007-3-2] [REFERRED TO]
SONALI PRAMOD DHAWDE VS. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2013-4-2] [REFERRED TO]
DIPANKAR CHAKRABORTY VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2013-4-71] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAMAL KUMAR MAITY VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2012-6-87] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HP VS. TULPI DEVI [LAWS(HPH)-2023-1-95] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS. S S SOMASUNDRAM PERIYA PULLYAMPATTI VILLAGE ARUPPUKOTTAI VIRUDHUNAGAR DIST [LAWS(MAD)-2008-3-161] [REFERRED TO]
R SIVAKUMARI VS. RAMANATHAPURAM MAVATTA PAYIRCHIPETRA EDAINILAI ASIRIYARGAL SANGAM [LAWS(MAD)-2007-10-78] [REFERRED TO]
GITA KUMARI AND ORS. VS. STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-2015-1-25] [REFERRED TO]
A.NARSIMHA REDDY VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(APH)-2017-10-1] [REFERRED TO]
R AMIRTHAVENI VS. DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE OFFICER [LAWS(MAD)-2008-4-212] [REFERRED TO]
UNEMPLOYED SECONDARY GRADE TEACHERS VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2008-5-51] [REFERRED TO]
SNEHASIS THAKUR VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2008-3-12] [REFERRED TO]
VANITHA W/O S BALAJI VS. DIRECTOR OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY SERVICES [LAWS(MAD)-2012-9-68] [REFERRED TO]
K VIJAYAKUMARAN VS. SENIOR MANAGER HR(RECRUITMENT AND SYSTEMS) BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD [LAWS(MAD)-2007-10-491] [REFERRED]
ANIL KUMAR DWIVEDI S/O RAMAKANT DWIVEDI VS. SECRETARY, VIDHAN SABHA SACHIVALAYA, CHHATTISGARH VIDHAN SABHA [LAWS(CHH)-2019-3-183] [REFERRED TO]
K DAVID PACKIA MUTHU VS. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2008-2-374] [REFERRED TO]
M PONNI VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2010-2-281] [REFERRED TO]
TULSI ROY VS. KRISHANU ROY [LAWS(CAL)-2008-3-52] [REFERRED TO]
UTTAM KUMARI GIRI VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS [LAWS(CAL)-2006-12-87] [REFERRED TO]
P. PANDYRAJAN, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT VS. GENERAL MANAGER, TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION (NELLAI) LTD., TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT AND ANOTHER [LAWS(MAD)-2012-10-331] [REFERRED TO]
A.JEYAKUMAR VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2012-8-290] [REFERRED TO]
M MUTHULAKSHMI VS. SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU SOCIAL WELFARE AND NUTRITION MEALS DEPARTMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2012-10-19] [REFERRED TO]
VARADI RAJU VS. CHAIRMAN VISAKHAPATNAM PORT TRUST [LAWS(APH)-2010-11-68] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI KRISHAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2011-9-308] [REFERRED TO]
DHIREN TALUKDAR VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2012-4-93] [REFERRED TO]
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT VS. JOSUVA JEBAKUMAR [LAWS(MAD)-2009-12-296] [FOLLOWED ON]
M RAMESH KUMAR VS. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2008-7-433] [REFERRED TO]
CHETANDAN DHIRAJBHAI GADHAVI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2007-3-69] [REFERRED TO]
P. CHINNA MARUTHUPANDY AND ORS. VS. VANITHA AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2016-1-204] [REFERRED TO]
PRABIR KUMAR MAJI VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2008-4-18] [REFERRED TO]
CHANCHAL KUMAR PATRA VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2008-8-26] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRA PRAKASH KASHYAP VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2018-7-263] [REFERRED TO]
K P JAGANATHAN VS. COMMISSIONER [LAWS(MAD)-2012-8-132] [REFERRED TO]
T DHANALAKSHMI VS. DISTRICT COLLECTOR [LAWS(MAD)-2007-10-487] [REFERRED]


JUDGEMENT

H. K. Sema, J. - (1.)This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.02.2003 of the High Court of Orissa in OJC No. 6122 of 2000 whereby the order dated 6.8.1999 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter the Tribunal) in O.A.No.606 of 1998 was set aside.
(2.)We have heard the parties at length. The present controversy relates to the appointment of Extra Departmental Sub Post Master (in short EDSPM) at Ratnagiri, now redesignated as, "Gramin Dak Sewak". On 18.9.1997 a requisition was made to the local Employment Exchange. It was stipulated that preference would be given to ST/SC candidates. Pursuant to the advertisement the Employment Exchange sponsored a list of 40 candidates including the 4th respondent herein Sri Chittaranjan Kar. A corrigendum was issued on 19.8.1998 requiring public Notification having wider publicity along with the requisition to be made to the Employment Exchange. This corrigendum was issued in terms of the directions issued by this Court in the case of Excise Superintendent Malkapatnam, Krishna District, A.P. V.K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao and others (1996) 6 SCC 216. On 9.9.1998, the public Notification was issued inviting applications from intending candidates. In the said Notification, it was stipulated that if a minimum number of 3 eligible candidates belonging to ST community do not offer their candidature, the vacancy in question shall be offered to the candidates belonging to OBC and SC candidates respectively, in order of deficiency in representation. Pursuant to Public Notification the appellant applied for the post as an OBC candidate in the prescribed application format along with the requisite documents.
(3.)It may be mentioned here that out of 40 candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange, only 7 candidates submitted their application forms when called upon to do so. Thus, 33 were eliminated. Out of the balance 7 candidates, six candidates were again disqualified since they did not produce all the necessary documents. The candidature of only the 4th respondent was considered and he was selected on 15.10.1998. There was no element of selection. The process of selection was a mockery. The candidates including the appellant, who applied pursuant to the advertisement, were eliminated by Respondent No.2 Supdt. of Post Offices, Cuttack, North Division, on the ground that since the recruitment process had already commenced pursuant to the requisition made to the Employment Exchange on 18.9.1997, the public Notification issued on 9.9.98 inviting applications was superfluous and unnecessary. On this reasoning, the 2nd Respondent was of the view that the 4th respondent who is a general category candidate was the only eligible candidate amongst the applicants who applied pursuant to the requisition made to the Employment Exchange.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.