@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
1. The challenge in this writ application is against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, recorded on December 9, 2005 in O. A. No. 425 of 2001, whereby the challenge at the instance of the petitioner against the order dated June 25, 2001 issued by the respondent authority terminating his services as "Extra Departmental Branch Post Master" (E.D.B.P.M.), was made unsuccessful, hence this writ application by invocation of provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. Let it be mentioned at the outset, to appreciate the merits of the challenge against the order of the Tribunal that the petitioner came to be appointed as "E.D.B.P.M.", Bermi B.O. with effect from May 31, 1999. He had also produced some documents which were examined by the authority and one of them has been the marksheet of the High School Examination 1998 and School Leaving Certificate issued by "C.B.H.E"., New Delhi.
3. On doubt being raised, an enquiry came to be conducted from the Directorate of Education of National Capital Region. It came to the notice of the respondent-authority that by virtue of notification dated October 15, 1982 the institution, from where the petitioner had received education, was not recognised by the Government of India.
4. It was found by the Department that some persons including the petitioner had presented and obtained appointment including the promotional benefits on the basis of certificate issued by the Institution which was not recognised. The examination conducted and certificate issued by the said Institute was also not recognised by the Government of India. The order of termination of the appointment is Annexure-3, dated June 25, 2001 which explicitly shows that in pursuance of Rule 6(a) and (b) of P & T Extra Departmental Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964, the Superintendent of Post Office, Gaya Division intimated that the service of the petitioner shall stand terminated with effect from the date of expiry of the period of one month from the date on which the intimation was received.
5. There is no, as such, serious dispute about the factum that the Institution, from where the School Certificate including the School Leaving Certificate was produced, was not a recognised one by the Government of India or the Postal Department. That apart, it is also not clear whether the certificate issued by such Institution was equivalent to Matriculation, as required for the purpose of appointments or not. The fact remains that the education was received by the petitioner in such an Institution which had never been recognised by the respondents. Therefore, when the termination is founded solely upon this ground, it cannot be said that the termination is invalid or illegal. It is in this context, the conclusion recorded by the Tribunal appears to be quite justified. We find no any reason to dislodge it. Again the jurisdictional sweep of the writ Court in terms of the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been very much circumscribed. What is required to be examined in a judicial review under the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India is as to whether any person has been affected adversely without an opportunity being given or has been visited adversely or the order passed is in any way coloured or influenced by extraneous consideration. In our opinion, when the very basis of the appointment for the post in question falls to the ground, there would not arise any further question since the Institution from where education has been received by the petitioner is found to be not recognised.
6. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the writ application being without any substance and merit, deserves to be rejected on the threshold while affirming the decision of the Tribunal. No cost.
