ANJANA KUMARI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents through video conference.

(2.) The present writ petition has been filed "for quashing of the order dtd. 30/8/2019 passed in OA No. 050/00300/2016 by the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Branch, Patna by which Hon'ble Tribunal has disposed of the application filed by the petitioner with observation directing the petitioner to apply, if she so desires, for any similar post with the respondent department as suggested by the Hon'ble High Court in CWJC No. 10594/2010 and further in the nature of mandamus for directing and commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the same post i.e. GDSBPM, Sahsi Branch Office where the petitioner had worked more than 18 years and after termination of the petitioner on the said post the said post is vacant for seven years waiting for appointment of one Ram Udgar Yadav who is an accused in criminal case due to which his joining has not been accepted and he is not being appointed in near future, hence the case of the petitioner may be sympathetically considered by this Hon'ble Court and further for any other appropriate relief or relieves for which the petitioner is entitled in the facts and circumstances of the instant case".

(3.) The short facts of the case according to the petitioner are that the post of GDSBPM at Sahsi Branch Post Office in account with Sakarpura Sub-Post Office, PS. Alauli, District Khagaria under Begusarai Postal Division fell vacant and was notified for appointment in the year 1995, against which the petitioner came to be appointed. Her appointment was repeatedly challenged by one Ram Udgar Yadav before the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 710 of 1995, O.A. No. 396 of 1996 and finally O.A. No. 1028 of 2003. The last O.A. was successful and by order dtd. 28/5/2010, the Tribunal recorded a finding that the applicant Ram Udgar Yadav had secured the highest marks in matriculation examination and hence the appointment of the present petitioner in preference over his case was illegal. It was therefore directed to appoint the said applicant Ram Udgar Yadav after cancelling the petitioner's appointment. This order is impugned in the present writ petition.