IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3303 of 2005 PRABHAT KUMAR PRATIHASTA, son of Sri Budhi Nath Pratihasta, resident of village and P.O- Nagdah Balain, P.S. Arer, District –Madhubani, at present posted as Extra Departmental Branch Post Master, Nagdah Balain, EDBO in Madhubani postal Division. Versus 1. UNION OF INDIA through the Chief Post Master General, Bihar Circle, Patna 2. The Post Master General (North), Muzaffarpur 3. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Madhubani Division, Madhubani 4. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna through its Registrar, Sri Krishna Nagar in the town of Patna 5. Sri Radha Raman Choudhary, son of Sri Vidyapati Choudhary, resident of village, Nagdah Balain, P.O. Nagdah Balain, Via Arer Hut, P.S. Arer, District Madhubani. With CWJC No.5187 of 2005 PRABHAT KUMAR PRATIHASTA, , son of Sri Budhi Nath Pratihasta, resident of village and P.O- Nagdah Balain, P.S. Arer, District –Madhubani, at present posted as Extra Departmental Branch Post Master, Nagdah Balain, EDBO in Madhubani postal Division Versus 1. UNION OF INDIA through the Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Communication, Department of posts, New Delhi-cum- Director General, Department of posts, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi. 2. The Post Master General Northern Region, Muzaffarpur 3. The Director of Postal Services, Northern Region, Muzaffarpur 4. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Madhubani Division, Madhubani 5. The Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Madhubani West Subdivisional, Madhubani 6. The Central Administrative Tribunal, through its Registrar, Sri Krishna Nagar Patna, District Patna 7. Sri Radha Raman Choudhary, son of Sri Vidyapati Choudhary, resident of village, Nagdah Balain, P.O. Nagdah Balain, Via Arer Hut, P.S. Arer, District Madhubani. ---------------- For the petitioner in both cases: Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate For respondent no.5: Mr. Indradeo Prasad, Advocate For Union of India: Mr. Prashant Kahshyap, Central Govt. Counsel --------------- 6 18-03-2009 Heard the parties. Petitioner is aggrieved by judgement of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna dated 2-2-05 contained in annexure-4. By that judgement and order O.A. no. 678/1998 preferred by respondent Radha Raman Choudhary has been allowed and as a result the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Extra - 2 - Departmental Branch Post Master of Nagdah Balain in Madhubani Postal Division has been set aside on the ground that Radha Raman Choudhary had secured more marks than the writ petitioner but was illegally not selected for appointment on the basis of provisions in Rules/Circulars which required some landed property to be mutated in his name. The Tribunal has taken the view that such provision in the Rules/Circulars was contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and for that purpose it has placed reliance upon a Full Bench judgement of Bangalore Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal. On behalf of the petitioner it has been submitted that decision of the Full Bench of Tribunal at Bangalore is of a later date and, therefore, appointment procedure in this case cannot be said to be vitiated in law on account of law settled in that judgement. It has further been submitted that a Division Bench of this court through a judgement dated 21-12-06 passed in CWJC no. 9336/04 (Anil Kumar @ Anil Kumar Mehta Vs Union of India) has held that the said judgement of Bangalore Bench will not have retrospective effect so as to unsettle the selection process made earlier. That judgement has been annexed as annexure-7. In reply learned counsel for the respondents has taken us through the copy of advertisement in this case on basis whereof appointment process was initiated. That advertisement contained in annexure-2 does not contain any requirement of landed property mutated in the name of applicant. The judgement in annexure-7 was passed upon peculiar facts of that case in which the advertisement - 3 - itself was noticed to contain such requirement for all the applicants. In the present case We find that the advertisement did not contain requirement of landed property mutated in the name of applicant and the view taken by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna appears to be in accordance with law. Hence, We find no good reason to take a different view in the matter. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. It has been submitted that petitioner has rendered service since 1996 and hence, the departmental authorities should take a lenient view in the matter and accommodate him also on a similar post if such post is existing. We expect the authorities of the concerned department to take notice of the aforesaid submission if an application is made by the petitioner for being appointed on any similar vacant post in future. The facts have been taken from the records of CWJC no. 3303/2005 but other writ petition is based upon same facts and involves similar question of law between same parties, hence, the same will also stands dismissed in terms of this order and judgement. BKS/ (Shiva Kirti Singh,J.) (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)