THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No :20636 of 2000 ORAL ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) Challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A. No. 462 of 2000, dated 5.10.2000, the petitioner filed the preset writ petition. The facts in brief are that the petitioner herein was appointed as E.D.D.A. in the Sub-Post Office, Centenary Colony, Karimnagar on provisional basis. While so, the respondent No.2 issued notification dated 22.6.1999 reserving the said post for the category of S.C. Community. Challenging the same, the petitioner earlier filed O.A. No.1086 of 1998 before the Tribunal alleging that there is enough representation of S.C. community in E.D. Cadre and as such the post should not be reserved for that community. The Tribunal, through order dated 12.10.2008 disposed of the said O.A. with a direction to the authorities to examine whether there is enough representation of S.C./S.T. and O.B.Cs. in the total cadre strength of E.D. agents and if it is found that there is enough representation of those communities, the post should not be reserved for those communities and it should be filled up with the meritorious candidate irrespective of the community, to which, they belong. Pursuant to the said order of the Tribunal, the respondents through letter dated 26.2.2000 assessed the short-fall in the reserved community while taking the total strength of E.D. agents as 63. In the said letter, it was also stated that there is a short- fall in the OBC, SC and S.T. categories to the extent of 3 candidates in each category. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed O.A.No.462 of 2000. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner contended that the respondents have to examine the representation of the reserved community in the cadres of E.D.D.A, E.D.B.P.M., etc., separately and they cannot be clubbed. He also contended that the total strength should be calculated sub-division wise and not division-wise. So far as the contention that reservation has to be made sub- division wise, but not division-wise is concerned, the Tribunal while placing reliance on Services Rules of E.D. Staff, which defined E.D. Agents as one category, held that the reservation has to be calculated basing on the total strength of the E.D. cadre. The Tribunal having found that the respondents have calculated the reservation on the total strength of the E.D. category, rejected the said contention and accordingly declined to interfere with the proceedings impugned therein and dismissed the said O.A. through the impugned order. Hence, the present writ petition. Sri K.Vasudeva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the very same contentions which were urged before the Tribunal has contended that the respondents have clubbed all the cadres in the E.D. category and arrived at the short fall and the Tribunal also without properly considering the said aspect, dismissed the O.A. through the impugned order. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. On a perusal of the impugned order of the Tribunal, it is seen that as per the service Rules, all the E.D. agents belong to one category and they are not separate and distinct. In fact, the very same issue was considered by the Tribunal in the earlier O.A. filed before it, namely, O.A. No.611 of 1999 wherein the Tribunal observed that the percentage of availability of reserved community should be assessed basing on the total strength of E.D agents and not on the basis of a particular category of E.D. staff. In fact, the respondents arrived at the short fall after taking into account the total cadre strength of E.D. agents as 63 and after giving the break-up of the posts for the reserved categories. Admittedly, the respondents issued the proceedings dated 26.2.2000 in pursuance of the directions issued by the Tribunal in its earlier O.A. No. 1086 of 1998,dated 13.10.1999 since the said order of the Tribunal has not been challenged by the petitioner, the same has become final. We also feel that the petitioner failed to file any material to show that the said short fall arrived at by the respondents is erroneous. Under the circumstances, we do not find any irregularity or illegality in the impugned order of the Tribunal warranting interference. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ___________________ T.MEENA KUMARI,J Date: 18th August, 2010 ____________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J pnb