BALIRAM PRASAD versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 199 · Decided: 17-12-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.P. SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

BALIRAM PRASAD 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
'• 
DECEMBER 17, 1996 
[N.P. SINGH AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.) 
B 
Administiative Tribunals Act-Section 21-'-Application for setting-aside 
an appointment-Limitation-Application not filed within one year of ap-
pointment-Medical Certificate on record showing applicant was ill for certain 
period-If such period is excluded, period of delay would be minimaf-Held, c 
cause made out was sufficient to condone the delay. 
Constitution of India-Article 311/14-Appointment~efusal to ap-
point meritorious candidate-Cousin-brother was working in same office as 
peon-Decision of authorities to avoid employment of near relative in same 
D 
office-Held, exercise of such power without rhyme and reason is arbitrary 
and hit by Art. 14. 
·k 
The appellant filed an application before the Central Administrative 
Tribunal, challenging the appointment of the respondent no. 7 as Extra 
.. 
Department Branch Post Master, bypassing the appellant. This applica-
E 
tion was dismissed by the Tribunal on two grounds: first, as it was 
time-barred and second, the appellant was disqualified due to the fact that 
his cousin was already working in the same Post-Offic as Extra 
Departmental Delivery Assistant. Consequently, this appeal by special 
leave. 
F 
The contention of the appellant was that the reasoning adopted by 
the Tribunal in dismissing the application was patently erroneous and was 
liable to be set aside. On the other hand, respondent no. 7 contended that 
4-
he was appointed on 16th July 1992 and the application whatsoever, 
against his appointment, needed to be made before the Tribunal, could be G 
made within one year of the appointment i.e. by 16th July 1993; instead the 
i_ 
appellant filed the application in January 1994 and failed to make out any 
sufficient cause for such delay. As far as the merit was concerned, the 
authorities had decided on 17th October 1966 that the employment of near 
relatives in the same office was to be avoided. As the appellant's cousin 
brother was already working in the same Post Office, he could not be H 
199 
200 
SUPREME COURTREPORTS(1996) SUPP.10 S.C.R. 
A app9inted even though the appellant was more meritorious than the 
respondent No. 7, and the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the applica-
tion of the appellant. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
B 
HELD : 1. The Tribunal was patently in error in dismissing the 
application of the appellant on the grounds of limitation as well as on 
merits. On the question of limitation, it was not relevant to consider the 
delay for the period earlier to 16th .July 1993, as the application could be 
filed by this date. A medical certificate showing illness of the appellant from 
C 20th August, 1993 to 22nd December, 1993 was also on record. If this period 
was excluded, then the delay in filing the application remains minimal 
which in the interest of justice deserved to be condone.[202-A-B; 202-D] 
1.1. On merits, the Tribunal had itself noted that as compared to 
respondent no. 7 the appellant was more meritorious. The decision of the 
D authorities taken on 17th October 1966 reads as : "Employment of near 
relatives in the same office be avoided. -----------. As this is fraught with the 
risk of frauds etc., this should be avoided." Even if there may be any risk 
of fraud etc. even non-relative can be gu~lty of frauds, while on the contrary 
relatives may not be prone to such frauds. But even if they are, appropriate 
E procedure can be adopted for detecting such frauds and bringing the guilty 
to book or by having appropriate vigilance machinery to check such 
tendencies. But refusal to appoint a more meritorious candidate only on 
the ground that his cousin brother was working in the same Post-Office, 
without underling any rhyme and reason, would be totally arbitrary exer-
cise of power which cannot be held permissible under Article 14 of the 
F 
Constitution of India. [202-E; H; 203-A-B; 203-D-F] 
In this view, the Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the applica-
tion of the appellant. Hence, the order of the Tribunal is set aside.[204-B] 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 16753 of 
1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.3.95 of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, Patna in 0.A. No. 192 of 1994. 
H 
A. Sharan and A.P. Singh for the Appellant. 
BALIRAM PRASAD v. U.0.1. [S.B. MAJMUDAR, J.] 
M.K. Dua, T.C. Sharma, C.V;S. Rao for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was d

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.