SMT. KIRAN SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 3 S.C.R. 382 · Decided: 27-02-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. THAKKER · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SMT. KIRAN SINGH 
.. 
\' 
t-= 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
y 
FEBRUARY 27, 2007 
B 
[C.K. THAKKERAND LOKESHWARSlNGH PANTA,JJ.] 
Service Law-Appointment-Post of Extra Departmental Branch Post 
Master-Appointment of one candidate-Challenged by the unsuccessfi1/ 
c 
candidate-Appointment of the successful candidate quashed-Correctness 
of-Held: Candidate was selected in accordance with the service Rules-
Essential qualification and the eligibility criteria of having adequate means 
of livelihood derived from landed property or immovable assets was fi1/filled 
in comparison to the unsuccessful candidate-Thus, !'!lection to the post was 
valid-Order of courts below quashed. 
D 
The post of Extra Departmental Branch Post Master fell vacant. The 
District Employment Officer sent a list of ten candidates including name of 
respondent no. 5 for consideration to the post to respondent no 4-
Superintendent of Post Offices. Selection Committee did not consider the name 
~ 
of respondent no. 5 and as such she filed an application. Tribunal permitted 
.~ 
E respondent no 4 to carry on the selection process but without declaring the 
result until final orders were passed. However, respondent no. 4 invited 
applications from General Public. Both appellant and respondent no. 5 applied 
afresh. Competent Authority judged the comparative merits including the 
essential eligibility criteria of possessing adequate means of livelihood from 
F the income and selected the appellant and was then appointed to the post. 
Respondent No. 5 again filed application before the tribunal challenging the 
appointment. Services of the appellant were terminated. First application was 
dismissed as infructuous. Appellant was again appointed to hold the post. 
-r· 
Thereafter, appointment of the appellant was quashed and respondent no. 5 
was directed to be appointed. Appellant challenged the order. Both writ 
G petitions and Review/Recall application were dismissed. Hence the present 
appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
H 
382 
.. 
.-.\ 
"" 
r . 
. 
KIRAN SINGH v. U.0.1. [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A. J.j 
383 
HELO: I.I. The order of the CAT as upheld by the High Court, by which 
the application ofrespondent No.5 was allowed and appointment of the appellant 
was set aside is manifestly erroneous and cannot be sustained and as such is 
quashed and set aside. !Paras 20 and 2111388-B, Fl 
1.2. The appellant and respondent No.5 both have qualified the High 
School Examination by securing first division. The eligibility and criterion 
for the selection of the candidate to the post of Extra Departmental Branch 
Post Master as per the Service Rules was not only the merit between the two 
candidates in High School Examination but the additional criterion was that 
the candidate must be one who has "adequate means of livelihood derived from 
landed property or immovable assets" if the candidate is otherwise eligible 
for appointment. The instructions governing the eligibility of the candidates 
also provide that no weightage will be given for any higher qualification. The 
appellant has fulfilled the essential qualification and required eligibility 
criterion and as such her selection to hold the post in question was valid 
whereas respondent No. 5 was not eligible to be appointed on the post for lack 
of income criterion in terms of the Circular. !Para 201 (388-8-01 
1.3. The CAT allowed the application of respondent No.5 merely on the 
sole ground that as respondent No.5 has secured more marks in the High 
School Examination as against the appellant but lost sight of the other 
eligibility conditions contained in the Service Rules and the Circular 
governing the selection of the candidate to the post in question. The High 
Court in its impugned orders has not recorded independent reasons except to 
agree with the order of the CAT. !Para 19) (387-H-B] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1021 of2007. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 19.12.2003 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Allahabad in C.M.W.P. No. 56142/2003. 
T.N. Singh, Vivek Singh, Rahul Pandey and Umang Tripathi for the 
Appellant. 
B. Dutta, A.S.G., Shalini Kumar, V.K. Verma and Goodwill Indeevar for 
the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, J. I. Special leave granted. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
384 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
2. This Civil Appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 19/ 
B 
12/2003 in CMWP No. 56

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