CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No. 15307 OF 2004 RAM NARESH THAKUR, SON OF DAROGA THAKUR, VILLAGE PRATAPTAND, P.S.- BHAGWANPUR, DISTRICT- VAISHALI AT PRESENT RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SAHTHA, P.O.- SAHTHA, POLICE STATION BHAGWANPUR, DISTRICT- VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR. ------------------------- Petitioner Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA 2. THE REGISTRAR, CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICE, VAISHALI DIVISION AT HAJIPUR. 5. JITENDRA KUMAR SINGH, SON OF RAM CHANDAR SINGH OF VILLAGE SAHTHA, POLICE STATION BHAGWANPUR, DISTRICT- VAISHALI ----------Respondents For The Petitioner :Mr. D.P. Chaudhary,, Advocate For The Respondents : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey , Advocate (for respondent nos. 1 to 4) Mr. Amit Srivastava (for respondent no. 5) P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K.KATRIAR THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL S.K. Katriar, J & Kishore K. Mandal, J This writ petition is directed against the order dated 11.8.2004 (Annexure-4), passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, in O.A. no. 466 of 1997 (Jitendra Kumar Singh versus Union of India & Ors), whereby the original application preferred by respondent no. 5 herein has been allowed, and the authorities have been directed to appoint as Extra Departmental Branch Post Master (EDBPM), Sahtha Branch Office, in place of the writ petitioner. 2. The respondent authorities had issued an advertisement on 2.11.1995 (Annexure-1), inviting applications to the post of EDBPM, Sahtha Branch Office. 2 The petitioner, respondent no. 5, and others submitted their applications whereafter the writ petitioner was appointed leading to O.A. no. 82 of 1996. The same was disposed of by the Tribunal by order dated 11.12.1996, whereby the Chief Post Master General, Bihar, was directed to consider the representation of respondent no. 5 herein and dispose of the same by a reasoned order. The representation was considered and was rejected leading to the present O.A. no. 466 of 1997, which has been allowed by the impugned order. 3. It appears to us that respondent no. 5 had secured higher marks at the matriculation examination as compared to the writ petitioner. It further appears that though he had not filed any document in support of his occupation and/or properties, he did produce photo copies of the same at the time of final selection which was ignored by the authorities. The Tribunal has taken note of the fact and has in the totality of the situation, directed the authorities to appoint respondent no. 5 in place of the writ petitioner. 4. We do not find fault with the same. Before we part with the records, we must emphasize the observations made by the Tribunal in paragraph no. 6 of the order, and is reproduced hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference: “… We direct that the applicant be appointed on the post of EDBPM, Sahtha Branch office within 15 days from the date of receipt/production of this order. We would further like to hold that the respondent no. 4 has worked for eight years, respondent- authorities are at liberty to consider providing 3 him an alternate appointment in any vacancy in the vicinity of his residence, provided he fulfills necessary criteria for the same.” This Court will be pleased if the respondent authorities show due deference to the observations, and pass a final order in accordance with law and the order of the Tribunal. 5. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Patna High Court The 17th March, 2010 NAFR/pkj (S.K. Katriar, J.) ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )