REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.    478           OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.9440 of 2005)

Parmanand Singh ....Appellant

Versus

Union of India and Ors. ....Respondents

J U D G M E N T

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 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 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 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 produced and

respondent No.6 who was appointed had filed all the relevant documents.

Therefore, the petition was dismissed.  

3. Learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  submitted  that  the  original

documents were with the institution where the appellant was pursuing his

studies and in fact the institution had clearly certified that the original copy

of  the  mark  sheet,  admit  card,  school  leaving  certificate  and  other

documents submitted by the students at the time of their admission are not

2

returned to them under an order passed by the State Government.  It is the

stand of the appellant that there is no requirement to produce the original

documents.  

4. Learned counsel for the respondent-State supported the judgments of

the CAT and the High Court.                                                                         

5. It  is  not  disputed  that  the  original  documents  were  not  produced

before the authorities because the documents were with the institution i.e.

Ramdayalu  Singh  College,  Muzaffarpur  and  the  appellant  was  not  in  a

position  to 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 disturbing his continuance,

we direct 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 continuance of Respondent No.6 shall not be disturbed.  

6. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.  

3

…………………………………….J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

……………………………………J. (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)

New Delhi, January 28, 2009

4