IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.20883 of 2010 Bhagirath Yadav, S/o Late Jageshwar Yadav, R/o Village + P.O. Uteshra, P.S. Saakhua Bazar, Distt- Saharsha. ……….Petitioner Versus 1. The Union of India through the Directot General, Department of Post, Govt. of India, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi-110 001 2. The Chief Post Master General, Bihar Circle, Patna- 800 001 3. The Post Master General, Northern Region, Muzaffarpur 4. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Saharsha Division, Saharsa 5. The Sub-Divisional Inspector of Post Offices, Saharsa West, Sub-Division, Saharsha 6. Mr. Nav Prabhat, S/o Sri Vijay Kumar Singh, R/o Tola- Bahuarba, P.O. Uteshra, P.S. Salakhua, Distt- Saharsha. ……. Respondents ----------- Appearance For the petitioner : Mr. Rajendra Pd. Singh, Sr. Advocate For the Union of India: Mr. Md. Abu Haider, C.G.C. ------------- 04. 28.03.2011 The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner who was applicant no. 6 in the O.A. No. 275 of 2005 seeking to quash the orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal on 21.12.2004 on the ground that his case was not considered and his claim was rejected only on the ground that his services were terminated as his services were found to be illegal. The Tribunal has observed that there was no specific direction to the respondent to consider his case. The petitioner has filed a review application i.e. Review Petition No. 04 of 2005 seeking to clarify that there was a direction to the respondents to consider his case for appointment if he is found eligible otherwise, but the said review petition was dismissed, as appears, being devoid of any merits, hence, the present writ 2 petition has been filed. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has brought to notice of this Court the observation made by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 445 of 1996 on 2nd April 2004 wherein the Tribunal has observed as follows: “However, respondents are at liberty to consider his candidature for future vacancy, if any, in the nearby vicinity if the respondent no. 6 is otherwise found to be eligible for the said post. “ The learned counsel has further argued that having said so the Tribunal has committed an error in holding that there was no direction to the respondent to consider the candidature of respondent no. 6 who happens to be the present petitioner, for future vacancy if otherwise found to be eligible for the said post. We had also occasion to go through the order at paragraph-20 which has also been extracted above. We are of the opinion that the Tribunal has committed an error in observing that in the Review Petition no specific direction was given to consider his case for any alternative employment. At this stage, the learned senior counsel has argued that in pursuance of the direction issued by the Tribunal the respondents are bound to consider his case in view of the fact that the Tribunal has observed that the case of the petitioner has to be considered for future vacancy if he was found otherwise eligible for the said post. 3 We are of the opinion that the Tribunal ought to have clarified such observation. Under the above circumstances, it is made clear that the order of the Tribunal at paragraph-20 itself indicates that the case of the petitioner has to be considered by the respondent Department as per his own eligibility for future vacancy. With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of. S.Sb/- (T. Meena Kumari, J.) (Jyoti Saran, J.)