IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16408 of 2009 ====================================================== 1. Arun Kumar S/O Sri Ram Krishna Mandal Vill & P.O. Joriari, P.S. Salkhua, Via Simri Bakhtiarpur, Distt. Saharsa .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Union Of India, Through The Secretary Cum D.G. Deptt. Of Posts, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi 2. The Chief Postmaster General Bihar Circle, Patna 3. The Postmaster General Northern Region, Muzaffarpur 4. The Superintendent Of Post Offices Saharsa Division 5. The Sub Divisional Inspector Of Post Offices West Sub Division, Saharsa 6. Sri Manoj Kumar Verma, GDSBPM Of Khamhoti Branch Post Office, In Account With Simri Bakhtiyarpur S.O., In Saharsa Postal Division .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16416 of 2009 ====================================================== 1. Sunil Kumar S/O Late Kailash Bahadur Verma Vill & P.O. Paharpur, P.S. Bakhtiarpur, Distt. Saharsa .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Union Of India, Through The Secretary Cum D.G. Deptt. Of Posts, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi 2. The Chief Postmaster General, Bihar Circle, Patna 3. The Postmaster General Northern Region, Muzaffarpur 4. The Superintendent Of Post Offices Saharsa Division 5. The Sub Divisional Inspector Of Post Offices West Sub Division, Saharsa 6. Sri Ghanshyam Gupta, GDSBPM Of Tariyama Branch Post Office, In Account With Simri Bakhtiyarpur S.O., In Saharsa Postal Division .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Hemant Kumar Karn, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Tiwary, CGC _____________________________________________________________ Patna High Court CWJC No.16408 of 2009 (6) dt.15-10-2011 2 6 15-10-2011 Heard leaned counsel for the petitioners and leaned counsel for the Union of India representing the Postal Department. Since the posts in question are public posts, they must be filled up in a regular manner. As substitute for their brothers or relations the petitioners cannot be allowed to hold the posts indefinitely because it is not known whether original post holder will ever return back or not. Hence, we do not find good reasons to interfere with the orders of the Tribunal. However, it appears reasonable that the petitioners may be allowed to continue in the same capacity in which they were working earlier till regular appointment is made to the posts in accordance with law and rules. In our view, the departmental authorities shall be well advised to expedite the process of regular appointment and conclude the same at an early date, preferably within six months. In case, the petitioners apply for the posts in question their candidature shall also be considered in accordance with law and rules as they have gained experience of working on the posts. Both the writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. sk (Shiva Kirti Singh, J) (Shivaji Pandey, J)