CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.4104 OF 2007 ( In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) ****** 1. The Union of India through the Secretary-cum-D.G.Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi. 2. The Chief Post Master General, Bihar Circle, Patna. 3. The Director of Postal Services, O/O the Chief Post Master General, Bihar Circle, Patna. 4. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Bhagalpur Division ------Petitioners. Versus 1. Sri Rajiv Ranjan son of Sri Rabindra Prasad, resident of village Bankipur Gorakh, Police Station, Fatuah, Dist. Patna. -----Respondent ****** For the Petitioners : Mr. Sanjay Kumar (CGC) For the Respondent : Mr. Hemant Kumar Karn, Advocate. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR KATRIAR THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ****** K.K.Mandal,J. The present writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.12.2005, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, (in short ‘Tribunal’) in R.A. No. 84 of 2005, arising out of O.A. No. 949 of 2002. The petitioners have also called in question the order dated 21.04.2005, passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A. No. 949 of 2002. 2. Respondent approached the Tribunal seeking a direction that he may be permitted to appear at the selection process even though he had applied directly to the authorities in response to the advertisement wherein it was provided that the applications have to be routed through the Employment Exchange. It may be noted that 2 another applicant, namely, Manish Kumar has also preferred application bearing O.A. No. 948 of 2002, for similar/identical reliefs. The learned Tribunal by a common order dated 21.04.2005, disposed of both the original applications, and directed the authorities to put the O.A. applicants through the process of selection as required and accommodate them on the post of Postal Assistants/Sorting Assistant. The writ petitioners thereafter filed review application in both the matters which was/were considered and disposed of by separate orders. So far as the present case is concerned, the review application was rejected by a proceeding dated 14.12.2005. It may be noted here that the review application filed in O.A. No. 948 of 2002, was also dismissed by order dated 15th December 2005. It appears that the authorities preferred a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C.No. 14500 of 2006 (The Union of India & Ors. vs. Sri Manish Kumar & Anr.), which was considered and disposed of by order dated 11.11.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioners has produced a copy of the said order which is placed on record marked ‘Y’. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the present case is squarely covered by the judgment dated 11.11.2008 passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 14500 of 2006. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent does not dispute this position. 5. In that view of the matter, the present writ petition is also disposed of in the light of reasoning/findings recorded by this Court in C.W.J.C.No. 14500 of 2006. 6. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The order 3 passed by the learned Tribunal on 21st April, 2005, in O.A.No. 949 of 2002, and the order dated 14.12.2005, passed in R.A. No. 84 of 2005, are hereby quashed and set aside. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. I agree S.K.Katriar,J Patna High Court, Dated the 23rd April,2010 Sym/NAFR (Kishore K. Mandal, J.) (S.K.Katriar,J)