WP(C) 398/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA HON’BLE MR JUSTICE P.K. SAIKIA JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) 1. The petitioner, a Group-D employee (Daily basis) of the Postal Departmen t, Govt. of India, is aggrieved by the order dated 18.06.2008 passed by the Cent ral Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Branch (hereinafter referred to as the Tri bunal), in Original Application (OA) No. 320/2006 by which the said OA filed by the him claiming regular appointment against Group-D post was rejected. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Group-D employee on daily wage basis in the establishment of the respondent No. 3. He was so appointed by order dated 25 .04.2000. While the petitioner was working as such, he was invited to appear bef ore the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) on 22.09.2006 to test his working eligibility towards regular appointment against Group-D post. The petitioner du ly appeared in the selection and was selected for regular appointment pursuant t o which his medical examination was also conducted. With the issuance of the med ical fitness certificate, it was the expectation of the petitioner that he would be appointed on regular basis. However, when he was not so appointed, he approa ched the learned Tribunal by filing the aforesaid OA. The OA having been dismiss ed by order dated 18.06.2008, he filed the instant writ petition challenging the said order. 3. In the proceeding before the Tribunal the respondents filed their writte n statement in which it was contended that the very selection of the petitioner was illegal inasmuch as in conducting the said selection approval of the compete nt authority was not taken by the Manager, Mail Motor Service, Department of Pos ts, Guwahati who had conducted the selection. It was stated that since the proce dure for regular appointed envisages approval of the competent authority towards making such appointment, it was incumbent on the part of the said authority to get such approval before making regular appointment. 4. Another ground urged in the written statement towards denial of the appo intment to the petitioner was that there were many senior employees like that of the petitioner who had been left out from the purview of the selection because of which there was agitation and in fact, Service Union, Assam Circle through th eir agitation demanded cancellation of the selection. It was stated in the said written statement that since the senior Group-D employees (Daily wage basis) wer e left out and a junior person, i.e. the petitioner, was selected, the responde nt No. 2 issued direction to the respondent No. 3 not to make appointment agains t the post for which the petitioner was selected. In paragraph-8 of the counter affidavit, it was stated that the matter was under review of the competent autho rity and accordingly direction was issued to the respondent No. 3 not to make an y appointment till the process of review was over. 5. It was in the aforesaid circumstances, the learned Tribunal declined to issue any mandamus for appointment of the petitioner. The learned Tribunal has held that since the very selection was illegal, no right has accrued to the pet itioner and accordingly no direction for his appointment can be issued. 6. We have considered the matter in its entirety. We have also perused the records received from the Tribunal. Denial of appointment to the petitioner is o n the basis of the instruction furnished to the respondent No. 3 by the responde nt No. 2. If the selection was conducted without the approval of the competent a uthority, the said authority was within its competence and jurisdiction to withh old the appointment, more particularly when the senior employees were left out. It will be altogether a different matter as to whether ex-post facto approval of the competent authority could have been obtained. It is also not very clear as to whether the said senior daily basis workers were considered for appointment o r not. From the written statement filed by the respondents in the Tribunal, it a ppears that a review of the matter was under process and accordingly the respond ent No.2, i.e. the competent authority, issued the direction to the respondent n o. 3 to hold back the appointment of the petitioner. 7. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of providing that the competent authority of the postal department shall take appropriate decision in the matter taking note of all the relevant facts including the possibility o f granting ex-post facto approval to the selection made in favour of the petiti oner, subject, however, to the condition that in the selection the senior employ ees were also considered and were not found suitable. The matter is left open to the sound discretion of the said competent authority for a just and appropri ate decision in accordance with law. Let the decision be arrived by passing a sp eaking order as expeditiously as possible preferably within three months from to day. 8. The writ petition is disposed of without, however, any order as to costs .