IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 2840 of 2000 Between: Vennu Nageswara Rao S/o. Venkaiah Teldrapalli Post Office Tallampadu Sub Post Office, Khammam Dist R/o.Teldrapalli, Khammam Rural Mandal Khammam District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Sub-Divisional Inspector (Postal) Khammam South Division, Khammam District. 2 The Post Master Teldrarpalli Branch Office, Tallampadu Mandal, Khammam District 3 The Superintendent of Posts Khammam, Khammam District, 4 The Central Administrative Tribunal Bench at Hyderabad rep.by its Registrar Hyderabad .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an appropriate Order or Writ, direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, a) declaring the action of the 1st respondent in renotifying the post of EDDA, Teldrapalli Branch Post Office, Tallampadu Sub-Post Office, Khammam District through notification No.PF/EDDA/Teldarpalli/BO/2000, Khammam, Dt.8/1/2000 and the consequential orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench in OA.No.171/2000 Dt.11/2/2000 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional apart from being violative of principles of the natural justice and against Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and consequently b) direct the respondents to continue the petitioner services as EDDA at Teldarpally Branch Post office, c) and pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble Court deems fit, proper and appropriate in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.NANDIGAM KRISHNA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SERVICES I ORDER: (Per Sri Justice GHULAM MOHAMMED) This Writ Petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent in re-notifying the post of Extra Department Delivery Agent (EDDA), Teldarpalli Branch Office, Tallampadu Sub-Post Office, Khammam District, through Notification No. PF/EDDA/ Teldarpalli/B0/2000 dated 8.1.2000 and the consequential orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad B e n c h in O.A.No. 171/2000 dated 11.2.2000 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a native of Teldarpalli Village, Khammam District. He hails from backward class community and he did not pass 2nd year intermediate examination. While so, the first respondent notified the post of EDDA at Teldarpalli Branch Post Office through notification dated 4.9.1998 calling for the applications from the candidates who are eligible to be appointed as EDDA. It is stated that basing on the said notification, issued by the first respondent, petitioner and others have submitted applications and they were called for interview. The petitioner was selected and appointed as EDDA at Teldarpalli Branch Post Office on 8.9.1998 and since then he is continuously working as EDDA at that place. It is further stated that the second respondent also confirmed the appointment of the petitioner through his letter dated 3.2.2000 and is being paid monthly salary. It is stated that to his sudden surprise the first respondent again notified the post of EDDA at Teldarpally Branch Post Office through notification dated 8.1.2000 calling for the applications from eligible candidates. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred O.A.No. 171 of 2000 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and the same was dismissed by an order dated 11.2.2000. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that pursuant to the notification dated 4.9.1998 the petitioner was found to be meritorious and got selected and was issued an appointment order, therefore, the authority was not justified in issuing second notification dated 8.1.2000 calling for the applications for the same post. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that since the vacancy is caused due to death and the request if any, for appointment on compassionate grounds from the eligible members of the deceased family has been examined and as no eligible family members for the said post for appointment on compassionate grounds were found, the third respondent permitted the first respondent to fill up the post on regular basis and issued second notification dated 8.1.2000 for regular appointment. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides. We have perused the second notification dated 8.1.2000 and the order impugned. Since there are no legal heirs eligible from the deceased family, the case of the petitioner was considered among 24 candidates, pursuant to the selection list and he was issued appointment order. Though the appointment order was issued to the petitioner on temporary basis but he has undergone the process of selection and was selected on the basis of his merit. Thus there was no necessity for re-notifying the vacancy. The Tribunal ought to have seen that the selection and appointment of the petitioner was on merits and therefore, issuing the impugned notification was arbitrary and illegal. In the circumstances, we set aside the order under challenge as well as the notification-dated 8.1.2000 issued by the first respondent. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and hold that the petitioner is entitled to all other service benefits such as regularization and seniority, as per law. No order as to costs. _____________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED ,J ___________________________ C.V.RAMULU, J Dt. 28.07.2008 KA ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Sub-Divisional Inspector (Postal) Khammam South Division, Khammam District. 2 The Post Master Teldrarpalli Branch Office, Tallampadu Mandal, Khammam District 3 The Superintendent of Posts Khammam, Khammam District, 4 The Central Administrative Tribunal Bench at Hyderabad rep.by its Registrar Hyderabad 5. CC to G.P. for Services-I, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad. 6. 2CD copies