IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA C.W.P. No.61 of 2001 Date of decision: 6.8.2008. Tilak Ram ....Petitioner -Versus- Union of India and others ….Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta,Judge. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No For the Petitioner: Mr.P.P. Chauhan, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr.Sandeep Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General for respondents 1 to 3. Mr.Surinder Sharma, counsel for R-5. Deepak Gupta, J.(oral) This petition is directed against the order of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (For short Tribunal) decided on 4.10.2000 passed in O.A. No.134/HP/98. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Postal Department invited application for the appointment of Extra Departmental Delivery Agent (EDDA) at Sadog. Respondent No.5 Keshav Ram filed O.A. No.390/HP/97. The challenge in the O.A. was that the name of Keshav Ram had wrongly not been considered, solely on the ground that he held an elective office of Panchayat member. The learned Tribunal allowed the O.A. by holding that merely being a member of the 2 Gram Panchayat will not debar a candidate from holding a post under the Government. The Tribunal further directed that the Original applicant Keshav Ram should be given the post of EDDA. This matter was decided on 19.12.1997. Immediately thereafter the present petitioner Tilak Ram also filed another O.A. In this O.A. he submitted that his name had also not been considered on the ground that he was holding the post of Up Pardhan in Gram Panchayat. His grievance was that the learned Tribunal while deciding O.A. No.390/HP/97 had erred in directing that Keshav Ram be appointed as EDDA. According to the present petitioner, at best the Tribunal could have directed re-examination of the case of all the eligible candidates on the basis of the law laid down by the Tribunal but the Tribunal could not have directed the appointment of a particular person. This O.A. was rejected on the ground that by means of this application the petitioner was seeking review of the order passed in the earlier O.A. and according to the Tribunal he could have challenged the order by filing of writ petition but could not challenge the earlier order by filing a fresh O.A. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the present petition in which he has challenged the order dated 19.12.1997 passed in O.A. No.390/HP/97 as well as the order dated 4.10.2000 passed in O.A. No.134/HP/98. We have heard Sh.P.P. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sh.Sandeep Sharma, learned Assistant Solicitor General as well as Sh.Surinder Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents. 3 As far as the order passed in O.A. No.134/HP/98 is concerned we find no error in the same. The learned Tribunal was right in holding that if the petitioner was aggrieved by the order dated 19.12.1997 passed in O.A. No.390/HP/97 he should have filed a writ petition to set-aside the same. In fact, we are of the view that he could have either filed a petition for review of the said order or could have filed a writ petition challenging the order itself. In the present petition, the petitioner has also challenged the earlier order passed by the Tribunal. Admittedly he was not a party in the earlier O.A. From the material on record it appears that he was placed higher in the merit list as compared to Keshav Ram. However, his candidature was rejected only on the ground that he was holding an elective office. Sh.P.P.Chauhan, urges that once the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that no person could be debarred from getting appointment on a Government post only on the ground that he was holding an elective office, the case of the petitioner was bound to be considered and therefore the order of the Tribunal directing appointment of Sh.Keshav Ram was illegal and incorrect. It is well settled law that normally neither the Tribunal nor this Court are empowered to issue directions to the Government directing that a person be appointed against a particular post. The Courts or the Tribunals can only give a direction that such a person should be considered for the post. Therefore, we are in agreement with Sh.P.P. Chauhan that the learned Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in giving 4 direction that the original applicant Keshav Ram should be given the post of Extra Departmental Delivery Agent. The Tribunal was aware that many people had applied for the post. It could only settle the question of law but could not start assessing the merit of the respective candidates. The basic flaw in the order of the learned Tribunal is that it did not taken into consideration the fact that there were other persons like the present petitioner who would have also fallen within the zone of consideration. Sh.Surinder Sharma, learned counsel for the private respondent has urged that appointment of Keshav Ram has continued since 1997 and should not be terminated at this stage. We find no force in this argument. As per the record the present petitioner was higher in the merit list to Sh.Keshav Ram. It is also apparent that the present petitioner was also not considered on the same grounds which were applied to oust Sh.Keshav Ram. Therefore, the Tribunal should have only directed reconsideration of the case of all the applicants. In view of the above discussion, we allow the writ petition, set-aside the order of the learned Tribunal dated 19.12.1997 to the extent that it directs that Sh.Keshav Ram be given the post of EDDA. The respondents 2&3 are directed to consider candidature of all the eligible candidates on the basis of law laid down by the learned Tribunal and to offer appointment to the most meritorious 5 candidate. We may however clarify that till the fresh appointment is made the respondent No.5 shall be permitted to continue on this post. No order as to costs. ( Deepak Gupta ), Judge August 6, 2008. ( V.K. Ahuja ), PV Judge