SUMAN VERMA versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 647 · Decided: 24-09-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Leave Granted & Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
I 
'· 
SUMAN VERMA 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 24, 2004 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law : 
Appointment-Extra Departmental Branch Post Master (EDBPM)-
Qualifications for : (i) passing of Matriculation Examination and (ii) 
C 
possession of agricultural land on the last date of submission of application 
form-A candidate with more marks in the Matriculation Examination than 
a person appointed to the post-The said candidate also possessed agricultural 
land on the last date of submission of application form-But the mutation 
entry could only be effected JO days later-However, the said candidate was 
D 
not appointed to the post of EDBPM-But the CAT directed appointment of 
the said candidate-High Court affirmed this decision-Correctness of-
Held : Owning of agricultural land and getting the same entered in Revenue 
Records are two different and distinct things-The said candidate became 
owner of agricultural land before the last date of submission of application 
form and, therefore, she was eligible-Moreover, she was more meritorious 
E 
than the person appointed as EDBPM since she had obtained more marks-
Hence, authorities not justified in appointing some other person by ignoring 
the case of the said candidate-Hence, directions of CAT and High Court 
not interfered with. 
Appointment-Illegal appointment-Quashing of-An employee had 
been working on a post for a period of about 8 years-Effect of-An 
aggrieved candidate approached competent Tribunal immediately after 
issuance of order in favour of the other employee-Due to pendency of the 
matter before Tribunal the said candidate could not get the case decided and 
the matter finally adjudicated-Held : Case of the other employee to be 
considered for appointment in nearby vicinity if otherwise she is fit-Delay 
in disposal of case should not cause prejudice to the aggrieved candidate who 
had approached the Tribunal in time-Hence, CAT and High Court rightly 
set aside the appointment of the other employee and directed appointment 
of the aggrieved candidate. 
647 
F 
G 
H 
648 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
Evidence Act, 1872 : 
B 
Section 35-Entry in Public record-Mutation entry in revenue records-
Right or title to property-Held: It does not confer right or title to property-
Owning of land and getting the same entered in revenue records are two 
different and distinct things-Mutation entry neither creates nor extinguishes 
title or ownership. 
The appellant was appointed to the post of Extra Departmental 
Branch Post master (EDBPM). The qualifications for appointment as 
EDBPM were passing of Matriculation Examination and possession of 
C · agricultural land on the last date of submission of the application form. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
The appellant fulfilled both the qualifications and was, therefore, 
appointed to the said post and she had been working in the said post for 
a period of almost 8 years. 
However, respondent No. 6 filed an application before the Central 
Administrative Tribunal challenging the appointment of the appellant 
on the ground that she had obtained more marks in the Matriculation 
Examination than the appellant. The appellant also contended that she 
had become the owner of an agricultural land on the basis of a gift deed 
before the last date ofsubmissi.on of the application form but the mutation 
entry could be effected only 10 days later. CAT allowed the application. 
High Court affirmed the said decision. Hence the appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. When respondent No. 6 became the owner of .the 
property, on the basis of a gift deed, before the last date of submission 
of the application form, she could be said to be possessing agricultural 
land and, hence, she was eligible. Owning of agricultural property and 
getting the name entered in Revenue Records are two different and 
distinct things. Mutation entry does not confer a right or title to the 
property. Mutation entry neither creates nor extinguishes title or 
ownership. [655-C-i>] 
Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan, [1993) Supp. 3 SCC 
168 and Sawarni v. Inder Kaur, AIR (1996) SC 2823, relied on. 
H 
2. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) as well as the High 
SUMAN VERMA v. U.O.l. [THAKKER, J.] 
649 
Court were right in holding that though respondent No. 6 was eligible 
having possessed agricultural land, her case was ignored by the authorities 
and hence, the action was illegal and improper. 

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