HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No. 2166 OF 2001 Wednesday, the Sixteenth Day of June, Two Thousand and Ten Between Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Nizamabad Division, Nizamabad. Petitioner AND L.Rama Reddy Respondent JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari) Assailing the order dated 10.08.2000 passed in O.A. No. 663 of 2000 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, whereby application filed by the respondent herein was disposed of with certain directions, the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Nizamabad, is before this court. The respondent herein was appointed as Extra Departmental Branch Post Master, Khanapur with effect from 7.2.1996 on the demise of his father. Since the respondent herein was terminated, he filed OA No. 382 of 1999 challenging his termination and the Tribunal while disposing of the same by order dated 16.2.2000 has declared the notification impugned therein as null and void leaving it open to take corrective measures. Consequent thereto, the petitioner herein has issued a fresh notification dated 27.4.2000 for filling the said vacancy by an O.C. candidate. The O.A., the order of which is impugned in this writ petition, challenges the notification dated 27.4.2000 contending inter alia that his selection on compassionate appointment is pending with the Selection Committee and for a consequential direction to consider his case for compassionate appointment as ED/ BPM, Khanapur. As can be seen from the order impugned, though the respondent herein was terminated on 27.1.1999, he was reinstated from 25.2.1999 and is working in that post. In view of these facts, the Tribunal disposed of the O.A. directing the petitioner herein to first consider the appointment of the respondent as ED/BPM, if he is found eligible or else his name shall be kept in the waiting list of thrown out ED Agents and to process the notification dated 27.4.2000 and if the respondent herein is found eligible the said notification shall stand cancelled. As stated earlier, on the ground that the respondent did not complete four years of provisional service, he was terminated on 27.1.1999 and again reinstated from 25.2.1999 and working as such. The Tribunal has rightly observed that there was no reason for issuing fresh notification without considering the case of the applicant for appointment against that vacancy, if he is otherwise found suitable. It is not the case of the petitioner that the respondent was not suitable for appointment. Since the respondent is continuing right from 25.2.1999, at this length of time, we do not see any reason to entertain the writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari __________________ Justice P.S.Narayana June 16, 2010 MAS.