IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH 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 : 8753 of 2008 Between: K. Kullai, S/o. K. Kullai Swamy, HRO, RMS'AG' Division, Guntakal, Anantapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Communications Department of Posts cum Director General of Posts, New Delhi 110 001. 2 The Chief Post Master General, A.P. Circle, Hyderabad. 3 Post Master General, Kurnool Region, Kurnool - 518 005. 4 The Superintendent, RMS AG Division, Guntakal, Ananthapur District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari call for the records and set aside the order in O.A.No. 955 of 2005 dated 28-12-2005 on the ﬁle of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad and consequently set aside the order No. ST/GDS/KNL/2003/CAT dated 15-12-2004 passed by the 2nd respondent and consequently direct the respondents to extend the beneﬁt under proceedings No. 17-107/2000-ED&Trg dated 29-12-2000 to the Petitioner with all consequential service benefits and pass such other appropriate orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.T.LAKSHMI NARAYANA Counsel for the Respondents: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED And THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 8753 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled by the petitioner seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records and set aside the order in O.A.No.955 of 2005 dated 28-12-2005 on the ﬁle of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad and consequently set aside the order No. ST/GDS/KNL/2003/CAT dated 15-12-2004 passed by the 2nd respondent and consequently direct the respondents to extend the beneﬁt under proceedings No. 17-107/2000-ED&Trg dated 29-12-2000 to the Petitioner with all consequential service benefits. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the material on record. The petitioner herein ﬁled O.A.955 of 2005 before the Tribunal claiming that the respondents have not considered his case in terms of the order of the Tribunal in O.A.No.166 of 2004 and further seeks to set aside the orders in D.G.Letter No.17- 107/2000-ED & Trg, dated 14-03-2002 and Memo No. ST/GDS/KNL/2003/CAT dated 15-12- 2004 and to regularize his service in terms of the DG’s letter dated 17-05-1989 and the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Writ Petition No.1624/86 dated 29-11-1989. Tribunal has passed the following order while disposing of the O.A.166 of 2004: “All these OAs are accordingly disposed of directing the respondents to consider the claims of the applicants with reference to the representations submitted by them, in terms of the directions/instructions issued in the letter dated 29- 12-2000 issued by the Ministry of Communications, Department of Posts and also in terms of the clariﬁcatory letter dated 14-03-2002 issued by the Department of Posts by passing appropriate orders. We further direct the respondents to permit the applicants to furnish information relating to the periods they worked by taking assistance of Group-C officials working in the same Department. It is open to the Department of Posts, Ministry of Communications to issue any further clariﬁcation relaxing any of the conditions imposed by them in their clariﬁcatory letter dated 14-03-2002 for considering absorption of the applicants who worked for longer periods, as a one-time measure, for implementing the decision taken by them in their letter dated 29-12-2000. The respondents shall comply with this order within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the circumstances, we direct the parties to bear their respective costs.” From the above, it is very clear that the Tribunal as per its order in O.A.166 of 2004 directed the respondents to consider the claim of the applicant in terms of directions issued in letter dated 29-12-2000 and clariﬁcatory letter dated 14-03- 2002. The respondents have in fact considered the claim of the applicant in terms of the said directions and the impugned order states that the applicant does not fulﬁll the eligibility criteria laid down in letter dated 14-03-2002, but the applicant opposed the same. Be that as it may, the case of the applicant was not sponsored by Employment Exchange. In series of judgments, the Apex Court held that no back door entry can be permitted. In view of the fact that the name of the applicant was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange, the Tribunal held that there are no merits in the case of the applicant. It was also mentioned that pursuant to the clariﬁcation sought in view of order of the Tribunal, the Directorate has conﬁrmed by letter dated 13-09-2004 that there is no need to withdraw the instructions and the matter be decided in terms of the earlier instructions. In view of the above, the Tribunal has rejected the application of the petitioner and hence, challenging the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. As per the impugned order, it is very clear that the Tribunal has given cogent and convincing reasons while disposing of the O.A. and there are no irregularities or inﬁrmities committed by the Tribunal calling interference of this Court. Admittedly, the scope of Certiorari is very narrow and apart from that the petitioner is not eligible, as he is not sponsored by Employment Exchange. Hence, we do not ﬁnd any merit in the writ petition and accordingly, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. In the circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioner to make representation to the concerned authorities to consider his case by availing all the remedies that are available under law. No costs. ___________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ______________ C.V. RAMULU, J Date: 14-07-2008 Rns. ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies