SMT. KIRAN SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

SMT. KIRAN SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Selection for EDBPM must satisfy both merit and the essential eligibility criteria of adequate means of livelihood from landed property or immovable assets. Appellant fulfilled both; respondent no. 5 lacked income criterion, hence appointment of appellant was valid.

Parties
Appellant: Smt. Kiran Singh; Respondents: Union of India and Ors.; Respondent No. 5: Smt. Neelam Pandey
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
27 February 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Decision by Supreme Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Appointment to Public Post, Eligibility Criteria, Adequate Means of Livelihood, Merit Selection, Procedural Correctness
Service Law Appointment to Public Post Eligibility Criteria Adequate Means of Livelihood Merit Selection Procedural Correctness

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Smt. Kiran Singh

Appellant

Union of India and Ors.

Respondents

Smt. Neelam Pandey

Respondent No. 5

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Decision by Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appointment to the post of Extra Departmental Branch Post Master was valid under Service Rules
  2. 2 Whether eligibility criteria regarding adequate means of livelihood were properly applied

Ratio Decidendi

Selection for EDBPM must satisfy both merit and the essential eligibility criteria of adequate means of livelihood from landed property or immovable assets. Appellant fulfilled both; respondent no. 5 lacked income criterion, hence appointment of appellant was valid.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Impugned judgment and order of High Court dated 19.12.2003 in CMWP No.56142 of 2003 and order dated 28.01.2005 in CM Review/Recall Application No.9847 of 2004 are quashed and set aside.
  • Order dated 24.11.2003 of CAT in OA No.1041 of 1996, allowing the application of respondent no. 5 and setting aside appointment of appellant, is quashed and set aside.