Holding

Ownership of agricultural land before the application deadline satisfies the eligibility condition, mutation entry is irrelevant, and the CAT’s direction to appoint the more meritorious candidate is lawful.

Summary

Suman Verma was appointed as Extra Departmental Branch Post Master (EDBPM) in 1996, satisfying the statutory qualifications of passing the Matriculation Examination and possessing agricultural land. Respondent No.6 challenged the appointment before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), asserting that she had higher marks and had become the owner of agricultural land before the application deadline, although the mutation entry in revenue records was effected later. The CAT set aside the appointment, directing that Respondent No.6 be appointed and that the appellant be considered for future vacancies; the Patna High Court affirmed this order. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that ownership of agricultural land before the deadline fulfills the eligibility requirement and that a mutation entry does not create title, rendering the CAT’s decision correct. The Court also affirmed that higher marks in the Matriculation Examination are a relevant merit factor, and therefore dismissed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether ownership of agricultural land before the last date of application, without a mutation entry, satisfies the eligibility condition for the post of EDBPM.
Whether the marks obtained in the Matriculation Examination are a relevant factor for merit in the selection process.
Whether the CAT’s direction to appoint Respondent No.6 and to consider the appellant for future vacancies is lawful.
Whether the appellant’s continued service should be disturbed in view of the CAT’s order.

Legislation cited

Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 35

Subjects

Service lawAppointmentEligibilityAgricultural landMutation entryMeritCentral Administrative TribunalHigh CourtSupreme CourtEvidence Act

Judgment

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
I
' 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.

F
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 G
considered for appointment in nearby vicinity if otherwise she is fit-Delay
in disposal ofcase 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.
H
647
648 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A Evidence Act, 1872 :

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
B 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.
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
D 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
E 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
F 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
G
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 A
having possessed agricultural land, her case was ignored by the authorities
and hence, the action was illegal and improper. In view of the fact that
respondent No. 6 was more meritorious, since she had obtained more
marks than the appellant in the Matriculation Examination, the direction
of CAT to appoint her cannot be said to be illegal or unlawful. The said
direction is, therefore, not interferes with. [655-E-F)
B

Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan, (1993) Supp. 3 SCC
168, relied on.

3. Regarding appointment and continuance of the appellant for a c
period of almost eight years in service, it may be stated that respondent
No. 6 had approached a competent Tribunal for ventilating her grievance
immediately after the issuance of the order in favour of the appellant.
It was because of the pendency of the matter before the Tribunal that
respondent No. 6 could not get the case decided and the matter finally
adjudicated. Respondent No. 6 is, therefore, right in submitting that the D
said fact should not cause prejudice to respondent No. 6 who had
approached the Tribunal in time. The CAT is right in considering the
matter in its entirety and in making observations that the case of the
appellant be considered for appointment as Extra Departmental Branch
Post Master, in the nearby vicinity if otherwise she is fit. (656-B-D) E
Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan, [1993) Supp. 3 SCC
168, held inapplicable.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6275 of2004.
F
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.4.2004 of the Patna High Court
in C.W.J.C. No. 4106 of 2004.

N.N. Goswamy, Ms. Indu Goswamy: for the Appellant.

Harish Chandra, V.K. Verma, Vijay Panjwani, Amit Pawan, Amit
G
Kumar and Shreekant N. Terdal for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

THAKKER, J. : Leave granted. H
650 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A The present appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated April
2, 2004 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in C. W.J.C. No.4106
of 2004. By the said orde~, the High Court confirmed the order passed by
the Central Administrative Tribunal ("CAT" for short) Patna Bench; Patna
on March 9, 2004 in Original Application No.307 of 1997.

B The case of the appellant herein is that she passed her Matriculation
Examination from Bihar School Examination Board, Patna in 1983 in Second
Division securing .531 marks out of 900 marks. She passed B.A. with
Honours from Muzaffarpura in 1st Division in 1988. In the year 1996, she
got her name enrolled with the Employment Exchange. She was possessing
c agricultural land of 10 Kathas having purchased from one Dwarka Prasad by
a registered sale deed dated 1st March, 1995. She was also having a
residential house in village Khajuhathi.

According to the appellant, a post of Extra Departmental Branch Post
Master ("EDBPM" for short), Khajuhathi Post Office, Block Manjhi fell
D
vacant as the EDBPM, Post Office, Khajuhathi got promotion. A notification
was, therefore, issued for filling of the said vacancy and names of eligible
candidates were called from Regional Employment Exchange, Chhapra vide
a letter dated 14th October, 1996. According to the appellant, nine names
were sent by the Employment Exchange. The appellant was found eligible,
E qualified and most suitable. Accordingly, the appellant was appointed to the
said post by an order dated December 13, 1996. Since then, she is working
as EDBPM, Khajuhathi.

The appellant stated that though respondent No.6 was neither eligible
F nor qualified to be appointed as EDBPM, she was aggrieved by the
appointment of the appellant and the action taken by the authorities and
approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) by filing Original
Application challenging the appointment of the appellant. It was contented
by respondent No.6 before the CAT that though she was eligible and qualified
and was more meritorious inasmuch as she had obtained 584 marks out of
G 900 marks as against the appellant who had obtained 531 marks at the
Matriculate Examination, she was not appointed. It was also her case that she
possessed agricultural land as required and proof of having possessed such
agricultural land was produced by her. It was, therefore, obligatory for the
authorities to consider her case and she ought to have been preferred as
H against the appellant.
SUMAN VERMA v. U.0.1. [THAKKER, J.] 651

The CAT after considering the rival contentions of the parties, allowed A
the petition holding that the case of the applicant before the CAT (respondent
No.6 herein) had been ignored on flimsy grounds keeping aside the merits
of the contesting candidates. Resultantly, the order dated 13th December,
1996 was set aside by the CAT and a direction was issued to appoint
respondent No.6 (applicant before the CAT) forthwith. The Tribunal also
B
observed that since respondent No.6 (appellant herein) was working since
several years, on account of delay in disposal of the Original Application,
the authorities were directed to consider if she could be appointed "in the
vicinity if and when such vacancy arises" provided she is otherwise fit and
eligible for such appointment.
c
Being aggrieved by the order passed by the CAT, the appellant
approached the High Court of Patna. The High Court, however, confirmed
the decision of CAT and dismissed the petition. Against the said decision,
therefore, the appellant has approached this Court.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Goswami,
D
learned senior counsel for the appellant strenuously urged that respondent
No.6 was neither eligible nor qualified to be appointed as EDBPM and she
was, therefore, rightly ignored by the authorities. Drawing the attention of
the court to the notification issued by the authorities, the counsel submitted
that it was absolutely necessary that the candidate must have possessed E
·' sufficient landed property in his/her name and he/she was required to produce
the relevant record in token of having possessed such property. In the instant
case, respondent No.6 did not possess immovable property and the said fact
was duly considered by the authorities in its proper perspective and a decision
was taken that she was not eligible. The CAT ought not to have interfered
with such a decision and should not have issued direction to the authorities
F
to appoint her. The order, therefore, deserves to be set aside. It was also
argued that a totally irrelevant and extraneous factor was kept in mind by
CAT of marks obtained by two candidates at the Matriculation Examination.
The counsel submitted that the necessary educational qualification. was
passing&f Matriculation Examination and not marks obtained in the said G

- examination. Once a candidate is eligible, his case is required to be
considered in accordance with the guidelines and norms fixed by the
Department and there can be no "preference" of one over the other. The said
fact, therefore, should not have weighed with the authority and on that ground

- also, the decision is vulnerable. It was contended that a direction was issued
H
652 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A by CAT to "appoint" respondent No.6. No such direction could have been
issued by CAT even if it was satisfied that the action taken by the authorities
was not in consonance with law. The limited direction which could be issued
could be to set aside the decision taken by the authorities and to consider
the matter afresh in accordance with law. Finally, it was submitted that the
B appellant was found to be most suitable by the authorities and was appointed
as early as in 1996. About eight years are over :md she is working as EDBPM.
If at this stage, the appointment is cancelled, serious prejudice will be caused
to her. It was, therefore, urged that even if this Court is of the view that the
action taken by the authorities could not be termed legal or lawful, in peculiar
facts and circumstances of the case, the appointment of the appellant may
c not be cancelled.

Mr. Harish Chandra, learned senior counsel for the Union of India
supported the case of the appellant. It may, however, be stated that the
authorities have not challenged the decision of CAT before the High Court
or in this Court.
D
Mr. Amit Pawan, the learned counsel for respondent No.6, on the other
hand, supported the order passed by the Tribunal and confirmed by the High
Court. It was urged that respondent No.6 was eligible and qualified. She
possessed agricultural property as per the requirement of the Notification.
E Referring to the conditions in the Notification issued by the Department of
Posts, the counsel submitted that respondent N0.6 fulfilled all the conditions
meiltioned in the Notification. She was the permanent resident of the village.
She had passed her Matriculate Examination and secured more marks than
the marks secured by the appellant herein. She had adequate means of income
from independent source of livelihood and necessary certificate had been
F
produced by her. It was stated that pursuant to the gift deed dated October
14, 1996, she became the owner of agricultural land. The last date for
submission of the applications was 12th November, 1996. Respondent No.6
became owner of agricultural land on October 29, 1996, i.e. before the last
date of submission of application. The mutation entry, however, could be
G made on November 22, 1996. It is thus clear,. submitted the couMer,"that
respondent No.6 became owner of immovable property prior to the last date
of submission of applic~tion, but the mutation entry could be effected in
Revenue Record subsequently. But from that, it cannot be said that respondent
No. 6 did not possess agricultural land on the last date of submission of
application. Entry in Revenue Record is immaterial so far as the title or
H
SUMAN VERMA v. U.0.1. [THAKKER, J.] 653

ownership of the land is concerned. That fact, therefore, could not have been A
considered by the authorities and the CAT committed no error of law or of
jurisdiction in setting aside the action of the authorities and directing them
to appoint respondent No.6 as she was more meritorious. It was also
submitted that since the relevant education qualification is Matriculation,
marks obtained at the said examination would indeed be relevant and the B
Tribunal was wholly justified in placing reliance on marks obtained at the
said examination. The order, therefore, required no interference. It was also
confirmed by the High Court. Respondent No.6 had approached the CAT as
soon as the action was taken by the department but CAT took time in final
disposal of the matter which should not come in the way of respondent No.6
in getting appropriate relief. In any case, appropriate observations have been
c
made by the Tribunal to accommodate the appellant, if it is possible. The
counsel, therefore, submitted that the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having gone
through the record, we are of the view that the decision rendered by the CAT D
and confirmed by the High Court needs no interference. It is clear from the
notification and the conditions laid down therein that both, appellant as well
as respondent No. 6 were qualified. So far as education qualification is
concerned, both have passed Matriculate Examination. Clause D of the
notification required a candidate to have passed Matriculate or equivalent
E
examination. It also stated that no weightage would be given to higher
qualification. It is thus clear that the authorities were to consider the factum
of passing of Matriculation Examination. From the record, it is further clear
that whereas the appellant had obtained 531 marks out of 900 marks,
respondent No. 6 had obtained 584 marks. Respondent No. 6 was thus more
meritorious so far as marks obtained at the Matriculation Examination was F
concerned. It may be stated at this stage that it is not even the case of the
Department that respondent No. 6 did not possess requisite educational
qualification.

The consideration weighed with the authority was that the appellant was
G
having agricultural land in her name, while respondent No. 6 did not possess
agricultural land and thus she was not eligible. Now, it is the case o(
respondent No. 6 that she had become owner of the agricultural land on the
basis of the gift-deed dated October 14, 1996, before the last date of
submission of application. Mutation entry could not be affected before 12th
H
654 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. j

A November, 1996 and it was done on 22nd November, 1996. CAT, in our
r
opinion, rightly held that in the circumstances, it could not be held that
respondent No. 6 did not possess agricultural land on the last date of
submission of application form and it could not be said that she was not
eligible.
B
Our attention in this connection was invited by learned counsel for both
the parties to a decision in Rekha Chatravarti v. University of Rajasthan,
(1993] Supp. 3 SCC 168. In that case, an advertisement/notification was
issued inviting applications for the post of Assistant Professors having
requisite qualifications. Some candidates had no requisite qualification. They,
c however, acquired such qualification afterwards. The question before this
Court was whether such candidates could be treated as qualified, eligible and
having acquired necessary qualification at the relevant date. This Court held
that the candidate must be qualified on the last date of making application
for the post advertised or on the date specifically mentioned in the
advertisement/notification. Qualifications acquired by a candidate after such
D
date cannot be taken as qualification for the post and he cannot be appointed.

One of the guidelines issued by this Court reads;

"B. The candidates selected must be qualified as on the last
E date for making applications for the posts in question or on the date
to be specifically mentioned in the advertisement/notification for the
purpose. The qualifications acquired by the candidates after the said
date should not be taken into consideration, as that would be
arbitrary and result in discrimination. It must be remembered that
when the advertisement/notification represents that the candidate
F must have the qualifications in question, with reference to the last
date for making the applications or with reference to the specific
date mentioned for the purpose, those who do not have such
qualifications do not apply for the posts even though they are likely
to acquire such qualifications and do acquire them after the said
G date. In the circumstances, many who would otherwise be entitled
to be considered and may even be better than those who apply, can
have a legitimate grievance since they are left out of consideration."
(emphasis supplied)

H Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that respondent No. 6 got
SUMAN VERMA v. U,0.1. [THAKKER, J.] 655

her name mutated in Revenue Records on November 22, 1996 and that is A
the relevant date. Last date of submission of application was 12th November,
1996. The ratio laid down in Rekha Chaturvedi thus applies to the case on
hand and as respondent No. 6 was not eligible, her case could not be
considered.
B
In our considered opinion, however, the learned counsel for respondent
No. 6 is right in submitting that respondent No. 6 had become owner of
agricultural land in October, 1996. The relevant date for consideration was
November 12, 1996 and before that date, she possessed such property. Rekha
Chaturvedi, in our view, supports respondent No. 6 rather than the appellant.
When respondent No. 6 became the owner of the property in October, 1996 c
before the last date of submission of application, she could be said to be
possessing agricultural land and, hence, she was eligible. In our opinion,
owning of agricultural property and getting the name entered in Revenue
Record are two different and distinct things. Mutation entry does not confer
right or title to the property. Though the law is very well settled, in our
D
opinion, the CAT was right in relying upon the decision of this Court in
Sawarni v. Inder Kaur and Others, AIR (1996) SC 2823 wherein this Court
held that mutation entry neither creates nor extinguishes title or ownership.

In view of settled legal position, in our judgment, CAT as well as the
High Court were right in holding that though respondent No. 6 was eligible E
having possessed agricultural land, her case was ignored by the authorities
and hence, the action was illegal and improper. In view of the fact
that respondent No. 6 was more meritorious, since she had obtained more
marks than the appellant, the direction of CAT to appoint her cannot be said
to be illegal or unlawful. The said direction is, therefore, not interfered with. F
CAT has also referred to para 2 of the Executive Order dated May l 0, 1991,
issued by the Director General of Post, New Delhi, which reads thus;

"The deciding factor for the selection of ED BPMs/ED SPMs
should be the income and property and not the marks, has been
examined threadbare but cannot be agreed to as this will introduce G
an element of competitiveness in the matter of possession of
property and earning or income for determining the merit of
candidates for appointment as ED Agents. Proof of financial status
is not only subject to manipulation but is also detrimental to merit.
When the Constitution of India guarantees equal opportunity to all H
656 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A for .their advancement, the reasonable course would be offer ED
employment to the person who secured maximum marks in the
examination which made him eligible for the appointment, provided
the candidate has the prescribed minimum level of property and
income so that he has adequate means of livelihood apart from the
ED Allowance."
B
Regarding appointment and continuance of the appellant for a period
of almost eight years in service, it may be stated that respondent No. 6 had
approached a competent Tribunal for ventilating her grievance immediately
after the issuance of order in favour of the appellant. It was because of the
c pendency of the matter before the Tribunal that respondent No. 6 could not
get the case decided and the matter finally adjudicated. The learned counsel
for respondent No. 6 js, therefore, right in submitting that the said fact should
not cause prejudice to respondent No. 6 who had-approached the Tribunal
in time. To us, the CAT is right in considering the matter in its entirety and
in making observations that the case of the appellant herein be considered
D
for appointment as EDBPM in the nearby vicinity if otherwise she is fit.

· No doubt relying on Rekha Chaturvedi, the learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that in that case this Court after holding the selection
process unlawful, did not interfere with the action and refused to set aside
E illegal appointment on the ground that the case was heard after eight years.
In the case on hand, however, respondent No. 6 had approached the Tribunal
immediately, the Tribunal considered the facts and circumstances of the case
and granted relief to respondent No. 6 and also made suitable observations
so that the present appellant may be accommodated if possible. Moreover that
order was confirmed by the High Court. We, therefore, see no reason to
F
disturb that direction.

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal deserves to be dismissed and i~,
accordingly, dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, however,
there shall be no order as to costs.
G
v.s.s. Appeals dismissed.