IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3394 of 2005 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL, BIHAR CIRCLE, PATNA 2. THE DIRECTOR OF POSTAL SERVICES, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL, BIHAR CIRCLE,PATNA 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, NALANDA DIVISION, BIHAR SHARIF 4. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL INSPECTOR OF POST OFFICES, NALANDA CENTRAL, BIHAR SHARIF ………………………..PETITIOENRS. Versus 1. THE CENTRAL ADM.TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH PATNA, THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR 2. SHAILENDRA KUMAR SINHA, S/O SHRI BRIJNANDAND PRASAD, R/O VILLAGE- RAISA, P.S.-CHANDI, DISTRICT- NALANDA 3. THE SECRETARY, BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD, PATNA ----------- 10 16/01/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Union of India. No body appears on behalf of the respondents, although notices were issued and served. Name of counsels of some of the respondents is appearing in the cause list but they have chosen not to appear. The stand of the petitioner is that after deciding the matter on merits by the impugned order dated 24.12.2003, the Patna Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal should have remitted the matter back to the concerned official respondents to consider the claim of the applicant and other eligible persons for appointment on the post of Extra Departmental Branch Post Master and should not have issued a positive direction to the official respondents to appoint the applicant on the post concerned. As an issue of law the aforesaid submission stands - 2 - supported by an earlier Division Bench Judgment of this Court annexed as Annexure 4 ( C.W.J.C. No. 10147 of 1999 decided on 26.6.2003). Even on facts the marks of persons other than the respondent no. 2 who was applicant before the Tribunal have been indicated to show that some other persons had secured higher marks than respondent no. 2 and therefore, justice also required the matter to be remitted back to the official respondents. In view of law and facts noticed above this writ petition is allowed to the extent that in the last part of impugned order the direction to the official respondents to issue order of appointment in favour of the applicant is found to be bad in law and the same shall stand substituted by a direction to the official respondents to consider the case of the appointment of the applicant and other eligible candidates in accordance with law. The other impugned order dated 27th January, 2005, contained in Annexure-2/A, a later order rejecting review petition, shall also stand corrected to the aforesaid extent. In the facts of the case there shall be no order as to cost. (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.) avin