IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1238 of 2004 BIMLESHWAR PRASAD SINGH S/o Shri Gauri Shankar Singh, Resident of Village – Kanhauli, PO Kanhauli, PS Darauli, District Siwan ….Petitioner Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA through the Director General, Department of Post Dak Bhawan, New Delhi 2. The Chief Post Master General Bihar Circle GPO Complex Patna 3. The Post Master General, Northern Region, Muzaffarpur 4. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Siwan Division, Siwan 5. Akshay Kumar Singh S/o Sri Bishram Singh Resident of Village – Kanhauli, PO Kanhauli, PS Kanhauli, District Siwan 6. Central Administrative Tribunal through its Registrar Patna Bench, Patna …..Respondents ----------- 03- 7.12.2009 None appears on behalf of the petitioner. Heard Mr. Sarvadeo Singh for respondent nos. 1 to 4, and 6, and Mr. Chittaranjan Sinha for respondent no.5. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 24.9.2003, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, in OA No.136 of 2002 (Bimleshwar Prasad Singh vs. Union of India & Ors.), which has been dismissed by a common order, whereby the analogous OA No. 154 of 2001 (Akshay Kumar Singh vs. Union of India & Ors.), has also been disposed of. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the parties. It relates to appointment to the post of Extra Departmental Branch Post Master (hereinafter referred to as EDBPM). The petitioner herein had preferred OA No.136 of 2002 with respect to filling up of the post of EDBPM. Simultaneously, respondent no.5 herein had preferred the said OA No. 154 of 2001, challenging the appointment of the petitioner herein to the post of EDBPM and for 2 further direction to consider his case for appointment to the same post. Both the Original Applications were disposed of by a common order dated 24.9.2003 and impugned herein. OA N0.136 of 2002 giving rise to the present writ petition was dismissed, whereas OA No.154 of 2001 was allowed, and the respondent authorities were directed to consider the case of Akshay Kumar Singh, respondent no.5, for appointment to the post of EDBPM. It is manifest on the face of it that the petitioner has challenged that part of the order whereby OA No.136 of 2002 has been dismissed giving rise to the present writ petition. In our view, the present writ petition is confined to that part of the order whereby OA No.136 of 2002 is concerned. On the other hand, that part of the order whereby OA No.154 of 2001 has been allowed, has attained finality. It is thus not possible to proceed with the present matter any further because both the Original Applications dealt with the same subject matter. 3. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. ( S K Katriar ) ( Kishore K Mandal ) mrl