SHETHNA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is working as Extra Departmental Branch Post Master (for short "edbpm"), Dhanok with the respondents since 22. 11. 94 on provisional basis. On the request made by the respondent No. 2 to the employment exchange office, Bhilwara to sponsor three names for filling up the post of EDBPM. THE employment exchange send three names including the name of the petitioner. In turn, the respondent No. 2 called the petitioner and asked him to produce necessary certificates for considering his name for appointment on the post of EDBPM. Accordingly, he produced the relevant certificates like, Sr. School Exam Certificate, Character certificate, Bonafide certificate, Certificate with regard to holding of Property and Income certificate along with his application on 24. 1. 95. THE property certificate (Annex. 3) was issued by the Medical Officer of Govt. Ayurved Hospital, Dhanok, However, it seems that the candidature of the petitioner was not considered by the respondents on a very highly technical ground regarding the property certificate issued by the petitioner. According to the respondents, it should have been issued by the revenue authority and not by the medical officer and, therefore, they proceeded to issue a public advertisement dated 1. 2. 95 (Annex. 4) inviting applications from the public for the post of EDPBM. Though the petitioner was already working on the post of EDPBM at Dhanok, may be on provisional basis, he was not considered, therefore, on issuance of the advertisement (Annex. 4), the petitioner first approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short `cat') by way of O. A. No. 68/95. However, the learned Tribunal dismissed this original application by its impugned order dated 2. 12. 99 (Annex. 8 ). Hence, this petition.
(2.) WHEN asked, learned counsel Mr. Mathur for the respondents submitted that the property certificate was very much necessary in that case and the same ought to have been produced by the petitioner issued by the revenue authority and not by medical officer for the purpose of security. It is true that by way of precautionary measure, the respondents were justified in insisting for production of such property certificate but the Rules nowhere provide for production of such certificate issued by the revenue authority only and none else. This question looses all its importance because when the petitioner came to know that his candidature was rejected only on this hypertechnical ground, then he approached the respondents to give him an opportunity to produce such property certificate of revenue authority but they refused and want to proceed with the advertisement and fill up the post. This was something unusual. We may state that the property certificate Annex. 2 issued by none else but by a responsible government officer i. e. medical officer and there was no reason to doubt such certificate, atleast in a given case when the petitioner was ready to produce the certificate of revenue authority. We should not loose sight of the fact that since 1994 till today, without production of any such certificate, the petitioner is working on the same post of EDBPM ofcourse on provisional basis. Under the circumstances, the stand taken by the respondents was absolutely unjust and uncalled for. Unfortunately, such a hypertechnical objection raised by the respondents appeal to the Tribunal, therefore, it dismissed the O. A. without applying its mind to the most important aspect of the case namely, that since last 5-6 years, the petitioner was working on the post of EDBPM on provisional basis. Before parting, it must be stated that on 10. 1. 2000, the Division Bench of this Court while issuing notice to the respondents calling upon them to show cause as to why this petition should not be disposed of at the admission stage itself, granted the order of status quo regarding the employment of the petitioner. The same is continued since last more than one year. Thus, uninterruptedly, the petitioner is in service since last more than seven years. In view of the above discussion, this petition is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 2. 12. 99 (Annex. 8) dismissing the O. A. of the petitioner is hereby quashed and set aside. The O. A. No. 68/95 filed by the petitioner is accepted. The impugned advertisement dated 1. 2. 95 (Annex. 4) is also quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner on regular basis on production of necessary property certificate from the revenue department which the petitioner shall produce with the respondents within two months from the date of receipt of this order.
(3.) STAY petition is disposed of. .;