PARMANAND SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2009] 1 S.C.R. 668 · Decided: 28-01-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 1 S.C.R. 668 
A 
PARMANAND SINGH 
v. 
UNION OF !NOIA AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 478 of 2009) 
B 
JANUARY 28, 2009 
[DR. ARIJIT PASA VAT AND ASOK KUMAR 
GANGUL Y, JJ.] 
Service Law - Appointment -
Claim of appellant 
c negatived on ground that he did not file original certificates! 
documents with regard to his qualifications - Respondent 
No. 6 who was appointed had filed all relevant documents -
Held: Appellant was not in a position to produce the original 
.... 
documents as they were with the Institution where he pursued 
D his studies - However, continuance of respondent No. 6 not 
~ 
disturbed - Direction issued that in case of any vacancy where 
appellant can be adjusted, the same be done by the 
authorities. 
E 
The Tribunal negatived the claim of the appellant for 
appointment to the post of Extra Departmental Branch 
Post Master on two grounds; firstly, his land was 
.. 
encumbered and secondly he did not file the original 
certificates I documents with regard to his qualifications. 
" 
F 
Appellant filed writ petition against the order. The High 
Court held that even if the first ground that the land was 
not encumbered is accepted, the writ petition was to be 
dismissed as all the relevant documents were not 
produced and respondent No.6 who was appointed had 
filed all the relevant documents. 
G 
In appeal to this Court, it was contended by the 
~ 
appellant that original documents were with the institution 
,._
where the appellant was pursuing his studies and such 
institution had clearly certified that the original copy of 
H 
668 
PARMANAND SINGH v. UNION OF !NOIA AND ORS. 
669 
the mark sheet, admit card, school leaving certificate and 
A 
other documents submitted by the students at the time 
of their admission are not returned to them under an 
order passed by the State Government. It was contended 
by the appellant that there was no requirement to 
produce the original documents. 
B 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
.. 
HELD: The original documents were not produced 
before the authorities because the documents were with 
the institution and the appellant was not in a position to c 
produce the original documents. In view of the aforesaid 
it is not necessary to examine whether there is any 
requirement for producing the original documents as 
observed by the departmental authorities. Respondent 
..,.., 
No.6 is continuing in his job. Therefore, without D 
disturbing his continuance, it is directed that in case 
there is any vacancy in the nearby area where the 
appellant can be adjusted, the same can be done by the 
authorities after following the necessary norms. The 
appellant shall not be entitled to any back wages and the 
E 
continuance of Respondent No.6 shall not be disturbed. 
[Para 5) [671-A-C] 
.. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 478 
,.. 
of 2009. 
F 
From the Judgment/Order dated 4.1.2005 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Patna in CWJC No. 16367 of 2004. 
H.L. Agarwal, A.G. Agarwal and Dr. Kailash Chand for the 
Appellant. 
G 
B. Dutta, ASG., Sadhna, Sandhu, B.K. Prasad, V.K. 
Verma, Akhilesh Kumar Pandey and Shalini Chandra for the 
Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H 
670 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.1. Leave granted. 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a 
Division Bench of the Patna High Court dismissing the Writ 
Petition filed by the appellant. Before the High Court, challenge 
B was to the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, 
Patna Bench (in short the 'CAT'). The CAT by the impugned 
order negatived the claim of the appellant for appointment to 
the post of Extra Departmental Branch Post Master (in short 
· EDBPM'). CAT held that the claim made by the appellant 
cannot be accepted on two grounds; firstly, his land was 
C encumbered and secondly he did not file the original certificates 
with regard to his qualifications. Stand of the appellant before 
the High Court was that the conclusions relating to encumbrance 
of land are incorrect as the encumbrance was with regard to 
another plot of land and not relating to the land belonging to 
D the appellant. It was also pointed out that the certificates were 
produced at the time of hearing of the original application before 
the CAT. The High Court held that even if the first ground that 
the land was not encumbered is accepted, the writ petition was 
to be dismissed as all the relevant documents were not 
E pr
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.