UNION OF INDIA & ORS versus G RAMESH

Citation: [2020] 4 S.C.R. 476 · Decided: 09-01-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
476
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 4 S.C.R.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
v.
G RAMESH
(Civil Appeal No. 140 Of 2020)
JANUARY 09, 2020
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Service Law – Appointment – 2013 notification inviting ap-
plications for conducting departmental examination to the cadre of
postman – Candidate selected and duly appointed, but was later
dismissed from service for having obtained selection by fraudulent
means – Respondent, second in the order of merit, made represen-
tation in terms of the direction passed on his Original Application
(OA) filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad
– Representation rejected – On being moved afresh, the Tribunal
held that upon the dismissal of the candidate who was selected and
appointed, the respondent had right to be appointed as postman–
Order affirmed by the High Court while dismissing the writ petition
of the appellants – On appeal, held: Once a candidate had been
selected upon the conclusion of the selection process and was ap-
pointed to the post, the Select List stood exhausted – There was one
vacancy – Subsequent dismissal from service of the appointed can-
didate in 2016 would not either revive the Select List or result in the
appointment of the respondent – Impugned order of the High Court
set aside – Consequently, the OA filed by the respondent seeking
appointment to the post of postman also stands dismissed.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD 1.1 Once a candidate had been selected upon the
conclusion of the selection process and was appointed to the post,
the Select List stood exhausted. There was one vacancy. The
subsequent dismissal from service of the appointed candidate in
2016 would not either revive the Select List or result in the
appointment of the respondent. The impugned judgment and
order of the High Court is set aside. In consequence, the Original
[2020] 4 S.C.R. 476
476
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
477
Application filed by the respondent seeking appointment to the
post of postman shall stand dismissed. [Paras 7, 9][479-A, D]
Thrissur District Co-operative Bank Limited v Delson
Davis P 2002 (2) SLR 410:2002( 2 ) JT 329 – relied
on.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 140 of
2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 08.02.2018 of the High Court
of Judicature at  Hyderabad, for the State of Telangana and the State of
Andhra Pradesh in W.P. No.530 of 2018.
Vikramjit Banerjee, ASG, Nachiketa Joshi, Ms. Awantika Manohar,
Pranay Sanjana, Siddhartha Sinha, Dr. D.V. Rao, Gurmeet Singh Makker,
Advs. for the Appellants.
M. Venkanna, M.V. Krishna Mohan, K. Maruthi Rao,
Mrs. K. Radha, Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. This appeal arises from a judgment and order of a Division
Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the States of
Telangana and Andhra Pradesh dated 8 February 2018.
4. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Hanamkonda issued a
notification on 4 November 2013 inviting applications for conducting a
departmental examination to the cadre of postman. The result of the
examination was declared on 20 December 2013. A candidate by the
name of G Vijender was declared to be selected and was posted as a
postman. The respondent was second in the order of merit in the Select
List. Upon receiving a complaint that G Vijender had obtained selection
by adopting fraudulent means, the employee was placed under suspension
on 24 January 2014. The respondent moved the Central Administrative
Tribunal1 at Hyderabad seeking a direction for being posted in place of
G Vijender. The Tribunal dismissed the Original Application as premature.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS v. G RAMESH
1 Tribunal
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
478
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 4 S.C.R.
G Vijender was dismissed from service after a departmental enquiry on
29 April 2016. The respondent filed an Original Application before the
Tribunal in which an order was passed on 25 November 2016 to consider
his request in accordance with the rules. Following this order, the
representation of the respondent to appoint him as a postman was
rejected, upon which he moved the Tribunal afresh. The Tribunal, by its
order dated 9 November 2017, came to the conclusion that the respondent
had a right to be appointed to the post of postman and that upon the
dismissal of the candidate who had been duly selected and appointed,
the respondent ought to be appointed. 

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