IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9241 of 2009 1. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY-CUM-DIRECTOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF POST, NEW DELHI. 2. THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL, BIHAR CIRCLE, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF POSTAL SERVICES (HEAD QUARTER), OFFICE OF THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL, BIHAR CIRCLE, PATNA. 4. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (RECRUITMENT) OFFICE OF CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL, BIHAR CIRCLE, PATNA. 5. THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, PATNA DIVISION, PATNA. …PETITIONERS Versus SANJAY KUMAR, SON OF SRI KEDAR PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE BAHPURA, VIA BIHTA, DISTRICT PATNA. ….RESPONDENT ----------- 05. 09.04.2010 Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh for the petitioners, and Mr. Jayant Kumar Karn for the respondent. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 14.8.2008 (Annexure-4), passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, in O.A. No.392/08 (Sanjay Kumar Vs. The Union of India & Ors.), whereby the original application has been allowed with the following directions: “Accordingly, the Chief PMG is hereby directed to call for the copy of paper-1 of the examination in which this application had appeared earlier and to go through the copy and verify the following points:- [i] That the totaling is correct. [ii] That all the questions answered have been evaluated. [iii] That, if the answers are correct, marking has been correctly done. If thereafter the Chief PMG finds that the marking was correct and according to the performance of the applicant in paper-1, he should record such an order, but, if he finds any mistake in the evaluation process and if he satisfies himself that more marks should have been accorded to the applicant, he would order for giving of more marks for which he may examine the copy himself or get it examined through a competent sub-ordinate officer and then pass an order relating to the result that was - 2 - published after the applicant had first time appeared in the examination. This should be done within two months of receipt of a copy of this order. At this stage, the learned Additional Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that such an order may not be treated as precedence. Such orders are passed under specific circumstances of a case and there is no question of treating any such order as a precedence. The applicant is also directed to provide to respondent No.2 a copy of this order along with a copy of the application within ten days of receipt of the certified copy of the order.” In spite of repeated queries, learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to inform us whether or not there are departmental rules or executive instructions governing the subject-matter of the present proceedings. He has also not been able to inform us as to the nature and kind of the two papers in question. In that view of the matter, we do not feel inclined to interfere with the impugned order. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. hr ( S. K. Katriar ) ( Kishore K. Mandal )