IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10880 of 2007 BHANU PRATAP SINGH S/O Mahendra Pratap Singh, R/O Village Kheshrahiyan PS Koilwar Dist. Ara Bhojpur. Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA through the Secretary, Ministry of Communication, Department of Posts, New Delhi-cum- the Director General, Department of Posts, India, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi-110001 2. The Chief Postmaster General, Bihar Circle, Patna-1 3. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Bhojpur Division, Arrah 4. Sri Rabindra Prasad Singh S/O Sri Ram Singh, Resident of village-Hematpur, P.O. Mainpura Dist. Bhojpur .---------- For the petitioner:- Sri Arun Kumar, Advocate Sri Bipin Kumar, Advocate For Union of India:- Sri Ramchandra Singh, Central Govt. Counsel For Respondent no.4:- Pranav Kumar, Advocate Dr. Indiwar Kumari, Advocate ----------- 14 27-01-2009 Heard the parties. On going through the two orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) Patna Bench, Patna one dated 26.3.2001 passed in O.A. no. 258/1996 contained in annexure-1 and the other dated 26.3.2007 passed in O.A. no. 358/2001 contained in annexure-12, this court finds that the first order of the CAT contained in annexure-1 was passed behind the back of the petitioner as he was not made a party to that O.A. It is also clear that before the final decision contained in annexure-1 the petitioner had already been selected for the post of Extra Departmental Branch Postmaster, Mainpura Branch Post Office in the district of Bhojpur on the basis of a re-advertisement dated 7.3.1996 (annexure-3). His appointment letter dated 5.3.1999 contained in annexure-5 mentions that he has been selected for the post temporarily but there is no mention in the appointment letter that petitioner’s selection and appointment was - 2 - subject to O.A no. 258/1996. In fact neither the notice contained in annexure-3 nor the appointment letter contained in annexure-5 discloses anything regarding pendency of litigation before the CAT relating to post in question. When the matter was finally decided by annexure-1 on 26.3.2001, as appears from paragraph 7 of that order, the Members of the CAT were not informed that there was re-advertisement on the post and pursuant to selection the petitioner had already been appointed, though on temporary basis, and was working. In such circumstances, by annexure-1 the CAT directed the postal authorities that since no final decision had been taken by the postal authorities by selecting a particular candidate, they should go ahead with the selection process confining the zone of consideration as per employment notice dated 24.7.1995 (annexure-2 to this writ application). Subsequently, when petitioner’s service was terminated by order dated 17.5.2001 (annexure-10), he preferred O.A no. 358/2001 before the CAT, Patna Bench, Patna but the same has been dismissed by order dated 26.3.2007 contained in annexure-12 on the ground that it was open to the petitioner to challenge the earlier judgement of the Tribunal dated 26.3.2001 but as a co-ordinate Bench of the same Tribunal the CAT was not competent to set aside the earlier judgement. Thereafter the present writ petition was filed in the year 2007 wherein the petitioner has challenged the earlier order of CAT - 3 - dated 26.3.2001 contained in annexure-1 mainly on the ground that it was passed affecting his selection and appointment but without hearing him as he was never made a party to that proceeding. It was further submitted that the parties to that case also failed to inform the Tribunal regarding re-advertisement of the post and selection of the petitioner and hence, that order was obtained by suppressing material facts. On hearing the parties and considering the entire facts and circumstances, We are of the view that order contained in annexure-1 is in violation of principles of natural justice and it cannot be allowed to stand as it affects the petitioner’s appointment. We are also of the view that now the matter raised by the petitioner before the CAT through O.A. no. 358/2001 requires reconsideration in the light of the fact that earlier order and judgement of CAT dated 26.3.2001 contained in annexure-1 has been found illegal by this court and fit to be quashed. Accordingly, the orders contained in annexure-1 and annexure-12 are quashed. O.A. no. 358/2001 is remitted back to the CAT, Patna Bench, Patna for reconsideration and fresh disposal in accordance with law after hearing all the parties. If the petitioner of O.A no. 258/1996 appears for being heard in the matter after remand he should be given proper hearing treating him to be a party in the present O.A. BKS/ (Shiva Kirti Singh,J.) (J. N. Singh, J.)