The Union Of India And ORS v. Lalit Vardhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15616 of 2015 ========================================================
1. The Union of India through the D.G. Cum Secretary, Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. The Chief Postmaster General, Bihar Circle, Patna.
3. The Director of Post, Head Quarter, Patna.
4. The Assistant Director (Staff and Recruitment), O/o the Chief Postmaster General, Bihar Circle, Patna.
5. The Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Gaya Division, Gaya. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
Lalit Vardhan, Son of Sri Arvind Chandra Sinha Resident of Village - Kandaul, P.O. & P.S. - Hulasganj, District - Jehanabad. .... .... Respondent/s ======================================================= Appearance:
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar (ASG) For the Respondent/s : Mr. H.K.Karn ======================================================== === CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH and HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH) Date: 08-12-2015 This writ petition is by the Department of Posts, Government of India against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna in O.A. 050/00120/2015 dated 22.05.2015.
2. Having gone to the facts of the case, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter for the reason that the recruitment process was for recruitment of Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant and one of the requirements
Patna High Court CWJC No.15616 of 2015 dt.08-12-2015 2/2 was that the person should have Hindi as a subject. The petitioner had Hindi as elected subject in the Intermediate level and in Matric it was Sanskrit. His candidature has been rejected on the ground that it was not a part of compulsory subject. To say the least, this pinnacle of distinction does not stand to reason. Having studying Sanskrit and then Hindi and the person coming from Hindi belt in Bihar, we fail to understand how he could be disqualified. The Tribunal rightly allowed his application. We, accordingly, do not intend to interfere in the matter. We may only note that the Tribunal, while allowing the matter, had followed its order passed in O.A. No. 539 of 2011. We have on earlier occasion in C.W.J.C. No. 9001 of 2015 by judgment and order dated 17.08.2015 affirmed the order of the Tribunal in the aforesaid original application. For the reasons above, this writ petition is dismissed.
(Navaniti Prasad Singh, J) (Anjana Mishra, J) B.K.Roy/- U