JAHAR SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 237 · Decided: 13-09-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.K. MUKHERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

JAHAR SINGH 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 
SEPTEMBER 13, 1996 
B 
[M.K. MUKHARJEE AND S.P. KURDUKAR, JJ.] 
Se1Vice Law: 
Appointme11t-Appella11t after obtaining the due pennission appeared 
in the examination for the post of accou11ta11t and qualified-His ca11didature 
C 
was cancelled on the grou11d of bei11g L.D. C. and for orga11isatio11al in-
eligibility-Held, C01icellation of the candidature illegal-Other siinilarly 
:situated persons allowed to appear-Contrary and conflicting stands in op-
posing the appeal only to fore stall the claim of the appellant-Appellant 
e11titled to all the consequential be11efits upon his having been declared D 
successful. 
The appellant, an employee of the Savings Bank Control Organisa· 
tion (SBCO), Uttar Pradesh Circle, under the Ministry of Communica· 
tions, appeared in the examination held for appointment of Accountants 
in the Post Office and Railway Mail Service and qualified. lnspite of his 
being (fUalified, he did not get any appointment as an Accountant but on 
the other hand he was intimated by Assistant Director General, New Delhi 
vide letter dated July 23rd, 1993 addressed to ADDS (Rectt.) U.P. Circle 
E 
F 
that as the appellant was working as Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in the 
SBCO, he was not eligible to appear in the aforesaid examination and his 
candidature be immediately cancelled. The representation of the appellant 
against the cancellation of his candidature having been rejected by the 
Director General of Post, New Delhi, the appellant approached the Central 
Administrative Tribunal. Before the Tribunal the respondent contested the 
claim of the appellant on the ground mentioned in letter dated 23rd July, G 
1993 and also on the ground that there was a separation of cadre of 
Assistants of SBCO from that of the PO and RMS. The Tribunal held that 
the respondents were not justified in cancelling his candidature and set 
. aside the order dated 23rd July, 1993. But the Tribunal did not grant the 
main relief of appointment for the reason that there was separation of 
cadres of Assistants of SBCO from those PO and RMS. 
H 
237 
238 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A 
The appellant moved this Court in appeal. The respondents con-
B 
c 
tested on the ground that the appellant was not eligible as he was an L.D.C. 
and that the permission was granted inadvertantly as there was organisa-
tional ineligibility of the appellant to appear in the examination due to 
seperation of cadres. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The respondents have taken different and contradictory 
stands and filed affidavits making patently incorrect and untrue state-
ments only to forestall the claim of the appellant. [242-A] 
2. The cancellation of the candidature of the appellant on the ground 
that he was LDC (SBCO) is unfounded which is apparent from the letter 
dated 23rd July, 1993 itself, wherein the respondent mentioned the desig-
nation of the appellant as P.A. and not LDC, as well as from the affidavit 
filed in this Court by the respondent on March 29th, 1996 wherein it was 
D stated that the appellant was Postal Assistant in Savings Bank Control 
Organisation. [242-B-C] 
3. The plea of organisational ineligibility of the appellant to appear in 
the examination is also without any substance, as the respondent allowed 
E 
two P.As. of the SBCO to appear in the examination held in the year 1993 for 
appointment as Accountant. Therefore, the rule and the circular shown by 
the respondent disentitling the 8ppellant to appear in the examination due 
to seperation of cadres has no substance. [242-H; 243-G] 
4. The impugned order dated 23rd July, 1993 is quashed and the 
F 
respondents are directed to grant all the benefits to the appellant conse-
quent upon his having been declared successful in the examination held 
on 22nd May 1992 for the post of Accountant in P.O. and RMS and this 
direction has to be complied by 31st October, 1996. [244-A-B] 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 11929 of 
1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.2.96 of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, Allahabad in O.A. No. 403 of 1994. 
H 
S. Muralidhar and Ms. Neeru Vaid for the Appellant. 
.. 
JAHARSINGHv. U.0.1.(M.K.MUKHERJEE,J.] 
239 
P.A. Chaudhary and C.V. Subba Rao for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
M.K. MUKHERJEE, J. Special leave granted. Heard the learned 
counsel for the parties. 
At all material times the appellant was - 

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