UNION OF INDIA Vs. RAJENDRA PRASAD PATHAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Satish Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the contesting respondents.

(2.) The petitioner Union of India and others aggrieved by the order dated 3.5.2002 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal") allowing Original Application No. 579 of 1996 have come up in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) The facts in brief are that the post of Extra Departmental Agent (hereinafter referred to as ''EDA') in Post Office Bela, District Varanasi fell vacant due to retirement of one Sri Krishna Singh and the same was notified vide Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, (Town), Varanasi's letter dated 1.9.1994 to the employment exchange. Pursuant thereto the employment exchange sponsored names of five candidates including the respondent no. 1. After scrutiny only two candidates were found eligible for the said selection. However, as per the EDA (Conduct and Service) Rules, at least three candidates required to be considered for the post of EDA and therefore, the Assistant Superintendent, Post Offices, (Town), Varanasi decided to advertise vacancy for getting some more candidates. A general advertisement was published in 1995 fixing 10.10.1995 as the last date. After considering various applications received, the respondent no. 1 was selected and appointed on the post of EDA on 10.11.1995. One candidate Sri Paras Nath Yadav who had applied pursuant to the general advertisement complained about certain irregularities committed in the selection which were inquired into and it was found that one candidate Sri Gyan Chand Yadav who was also eligible but his candidature was wrongly rejected and he was not considered and similarly there were some other irregularities also. Accordingly, a decision was taken to cancel the appointment of respondent no. 1 and order was issued on 3.4.1996 to the said effect. Pursuant whereto, the Assistant Superintendent Post Offices, (Town), Varanasi terminated the respondent no. 1. Aggrieved, he filed Original Application No. 579 of 1996 which has been allowed by ''the Tribunal' on the ground that before cancellation of his appointment no opportunity was afforded to the respondent no. 1.