MOHD ABDUL LATIF MOLLA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MD. Abdul Latif Molla, resident of Chota Bakri, P.O. Chandaneswar, District - South 24 - Parganas has filed this application against the selection of OBC candidate on the post of Extra Departmental Delivery Agent (EDDA) at Chandaneswar Post Office and has prayed for the following reliefs:

(2.) The fact of the case as it appears from the O.A. is that the Sub-Divisional Inspector Postal, Sonarpur Sub-Division, South 24-Parganas made a requisition to the local Employment Exchange asking for name of suitable candidates for the post of Extra Departmental Delivery Agent (EDDA) as stated in para 4.3 as per notice enclosed as Annexure-C. The petitioner applied before the Employment Exchange which sent the application to the Sub-Divisional Inspector of Post Offices. Since the application has not reached the Inspector of Post Offices, the Inspector on 22.7.96 advertised for the post independently as per notice enclosed as Annexure-D. The petitioner received a call letter for interview and he appeared in the interview on 14.8.96. The private respondent No. 3 Shri Balaram Nath also appeared in the interview alongwith the other candidates on the same date. After the interview no result was published. The applicant went to the Office of Inspector of Post Offices on 19.8.96 and enquired about the result. He came to know that the post was transferred to OBC category. The applicants submits that in the advertisement there was no mention that the post was reserved for OBC. In spite of that an OBC candidate, namely, the pvt. respondent No. 3 was appointed ignoring the claim of the applicant; though the applicant was better candidate. Since the post was for open category as per notice and not reserved for OBC the treatment of the post as reserved for OBC was irregular and illegal. The applicant, being a better candidate, should have been appointed on the post. The applicant submits that he also belongs to OBC category as per certificate, issued by the Local Pradhan, enclosed as Annexure-6 which the petitioner did not produce at the time of submission of the application as the same was not asked for. Being aggrieved by the decision of the Inspector of Post Offices i.e. respondent No. 2 the applicant filed this O.A. and prayed for the reliefs as stated above.

(3.) LD. Counsel for the applicant reiterated the fact and submitted that the post of E.D.D.A. at Chandaneswar Post Office was kept as open as per advertisement issued for the post and interview was held accordingly. The appointment of OBC candidate, namely, pvt. respondent No. 3 in preference to other candidates is, therefore, illegal. The learned Counsel further submits that the petitioner was a better candidate than the pvt. respondent No. 3 Therefore, he was entitled to be appointed to the post. The learned Counsel further submits that when the interview was taken approved candidate should have been selected. Therefore, selection of some other candidate is violative of principle of natural justice. The learned Counsel further submits that the selection made and appointment given to pvt. respondent No. 3 is illegal and against the notice inviting application for the post and the terms and conditions for appointment on the post.