NARESH CHOUDHARY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the writ petitions seek to challenge the common order dated 31.01.2005, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench (CAT for short), in O.A. No. 113 of 2000 (Naresh Choudhary v. Union of India and Ors.), and O.A. No. 63 of 1999 (Binod Paswan v. The Union of India and Ors.), whereby both the applications along with another original applications were disposed of, and it was held that the petitioners of both the present original applications were not entitled to any relief. The learned Tribunal had disposed of the original applications by issuing following directions:

(2.) The relevant facts shall be drawn from C.W.J.C. No. 5052 of 2005. A vacancy for the post of Extra Departmental Branch Post Master (EDBPM for short) of Bardih, Extra Departmental Branch Post Office (EDBPO for short), fell vacant due to retirement of the incumbent sometime in 1998. On 24.04.1998, the local authorities notified the vacancy, and sent requisition to the District Employment Exchange, Nalanda, to forward name(s) of eligible candidates within 30 days. The District Employment Exchange Office forwarded the names of 16 candidates after stipulated time. This called for another requisition/advertisement which was accordingly sent on 29.05.1998 (Annexure-2). In the said requisition, it was indicated that preference will be given to the Scheduled Tribe/Scheduled Caste candidates. The last date fixed for receipt of the application was 12.06.1998. Altogether 10 applications were received within time, and the same after scrutiny were sent for verification and report. Sub Divisional Inspector submitted his verification report on 21.07.1998. On scrutiny of the reports and papers received along with the applications, petitioner Naresh Choudhary was found fulfilling the requisite conditions for the post. Accordingly, the petitioner was appointed on 19.08.1998, as the Extra Departmental Branch Post Master. The text of the letter of appointment reads as follows:

(3.) If these conditions are acceptable to him, he should communicate his acceptance in the enclosed proforma.