CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.5052 OF 2005 (In the matter of applications under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ****** Naresh Choudhary Son of Late Ram Sharan Roy, EDBPM of Bardih EDBO, P.O. Bardih, Dist. Nalanda, Resident of Village and P.O. Bardih, P.S. Islampur, Dist. Nalanda -------Petitioner Versus 1. The Union of India through the Secretary- cum Director General Government of India, Ministry of Communication, Department of Posts, India, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi-110001. 2. The Chief Post Master General, Department of Bihar Circle, Patna 3. The Director of Postal Services, Central Region, Patna-800001 4. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Nalanda Division at Biharsharif P.O. Biharsharif H.O., District Nalanda-803101 5. The Sub-divisional Inspector(Postal), Nalanda West Sub-Opposite parties at Hilsa P.O. Hilsa, Dist. Nalanda 801302 6. The Central Administrative Tribunal, through its Registrar, Patna Bench, Patna. 7. Amresh Kumar Arya S/O Sri Devendra Kumar Arya resident of Village & Post- Mohiuddinpur (Hilsa) Dist. Nalanda. ---Respondents With CWJC No.12264 OF 2005 Binod Paswan S/O Bachhu Paswan, R/O village and P.O. Bardih, P.S.Islampur, Dist. Nalanda. --- Petitioner Versus 1. The Union of India, through Superintendent of Post, Nalanda Division, Biharsharif. 2. The Sub-Divisional Inspector of Post, Nalanda Western Division, Hilsa. 3. Naresh Chaudhary S/O Late Ram Saran Rao, R/O Vill.- Bardih P.S.Islampur,Dist. Nalanda. 4. C.A.T. through its Registrar, Patna. ---- Respondents ****** In C.W.J.C.No. 5052 of 2005 For the Petitioner : Mr. Lalit Kishore (Sr. Advocate) For the Respondents : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey (C.G.C.) In C.W.J.C.No. 12264 of 2005 For the Petitioner : Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Pandey, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Lalit Kishore (Sr. Advocate) 2 P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR KATRIAR THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ****** K.K.Mandal,J. Both the writ petitions seek to challenge the common order dated 31.01.2005, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench (‘CAT’ for short), in O.A.No. 113 of 2000 (Naresh Choudhary vs. Union of India & Ors.), and O.A.No.63 of 1999 ( Binod Paswan vs. The Union of India & Ors.), whereby both the applications along with another original applications were disposed of, and it was held that the petitioners of both the present original applications were not entitled to any relief. The learned Tribunal had disposed of the original applications by issuing following directions: “We direct the Chief Post Master General, Bihar Circle, Patna, to personally look into the matter and take a positive decision as to how the post in question is required to be filled up;(ii) appropriate notification thereafter should be issued by giving requisition to Employment Exchange as well as wide publicity of the notification from open market should be done and then appointment should be given to the best candidate, depending on the highest marks received by the candidate in Matriculation from the category for which the post is meant to be filled from. Therefore, the first thing that is required to be ascertained is whether this post is required to be reserved for any category or is to be filled from general candidate;(iii) We would also direct the Chief PMG, Bihar Circle, Patna, to take corrective measures by initiating action against those officers who are found responsible for committing irregularities in order to check any further unnecessary litigation in this regard; (iv) Till such time the selection process is completed and regular appointment is made to the post of EDBPM, Bardih, Shri Naresh Choudhary should be allowed to continue on the said post since he is already continuing in the said post. It is, however, made clear that the process should be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order under intimation to all the applicants. With 3 the above directions, all the aforesaid three OAs are disposed of. No order as to costs.” 2. The relevant facts shall be drawn from C.W.J.C.No. 5052 of 2005. A vacancy for the post of Extra Departmental Branch Post Master (‘EDBPM’ for short) of Bardih, Extra Departmental Branch Post Office (‘EDBPO’ for short), fell vacant due to retirement of the incumbent sometime in 1998. On 24.04.1998, the local authorities notified the vacancy, and sent requisition to the District Employment Exchange, Nalanda, to forward name(s) of eligible candidates within 30 days. The District Employment Exchange Office forwarded the names of 16 candidates after stipulated time. This called for another requisition/advertisement which was accordingly sent on 29.05.1998 (Annexure-2). In the said requisition, it was indicated that preference will be given to the Scheduled Tribe/Scheduled Caste candidates. The last date fixed for receipt of the application was 12.06.1998. Altogether 10 applications were received within time, and the same after scrutiny were sent for verification and report. Sub Divisional Inspector submitted his verification report on 21.07.1998. On scrutiny of the reports and papers received along with the applications, petitioner Naresh Choudhary was found fulfilling the requisite conditions for the post. Accordingly, the petitioner was appointed on 19.08.1998, as the Extra Departmental Branch Post Master. The text of the letter of appointment reads as follows:- “Order of appointment Memo No.A1-65 Dated at Biharsharif the 19-8-98 Shri Naresh Choudhary Son of Late Ramsharan Rao is hereby appointed as EDBPM/ Bardih with effect from. forenoon/after-noon. He shall be paid such allowances as are admissible from time to time. 4 2. Shri Naresh Choudhary shold clearly understand that his employment as EDBPM/Bardih BO shall be in the nature of a contract liable to be terminated by him or by the undersigned by notifying the other in writing and that he shall also be governed by the Posts & Telegraphs Extra Departmental Agents ( Conduct and Service) Rules,1964, as amended from time to time. 3. If these conditions are acceptable to him, he should communicate his acceptance in the enclosed proforma.” It is the case of the petitioner that he joined the said post on 25.08.1998. Subsequently, the Chief Post Master General, Bihar Circle, Patna, by a communication dated 16.08.1999, directed cancellation of the appointment of the petitioner. Accordingly, a show- cause notice dated 23.08.1999 (Annexure-10), was issued to the petitioner to which he submitted his explanation on 23.09.1999. Formal order of termination of service was passed on 02.02.2000. This led to the original application by the present writ petitioner. It seems that due to termination of the petitioner appointment, and non- appointment of another candidate to the post/assignment in question, two original applications being O.A. No. 63 of 1999 (Binod Paswan vs. The Union of India & Ors.) and O.A.No. 700 of 1998 (Sandhya Rani vs. The Union of India & Ors.), were also filed seeking appointment to the post in question in place of the present writ petitioner. All the aforesaid original applications have been considered and disposed of by the common order dated 31.01.2005, which is impugned in the present batch of writ petitions. 3. We have heard counsel for the parties and considered the submissions. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the first requisition/notification sent to the District Employment Exchange 5 Annexure-1, does contemplate that preference shall be given to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe and Other Backward Classes candidates in the matter of engagement of Extra Departmental Branch Post Master. It is next contended that the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner indicates that a decision had already been taken to terminate his services and as such it is mere formality. It is next contended that the cause shown by the petitioner was not considered and the impugned order was passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that so far as the qualification of possessing landed property is concerned, the same has not been insisted upon by the Department. According to him, engagement of the petitioner as EDBPM has been dispensed with on the ground that the vacancy was meant first for Scheduled Tribe candidates and, in the event of non- availability of such candidates, the Scheduled Castes candidates. Learned counsel for the petitioner in the same vein submits that going by the requisition it can be best found that only preference was to be given to the Scheduled Tribe/Scheduled Caste candidates. It thus cannot be said that the post was earmarked only for S.T./S.C. candidates. On this score itself, the impugned order passed by the authority dispensing with the petitioner’s service as EDBPM is unjustified and unwarranted. 4. Learned counsel for the Union of India supported the impugned order. It is contended that in view of the rival claims made by the two candidates to the post in question, the learned Tribunal has rightly directed for fresh advertisement and consideration of cases of all eligible candidates strictly on merit. 6 5. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. It appears to us that the requisition does indicate that preference will be given to the S.T./S.C. candidates first. Learned counsel for the Union of India made submissions with reference to the averments in the counter affidavit in order to show that the post in fact was reserved for S.T./S.C. candidates. Engagement of Extra Departmental Branch Post Master Agents are contractual. This is manifest from the nature of appointment/engagement letter issued to the petitioner which has been quoted herein above. The service of EDBPM agents are government by Rule called Extra Departmental Agent (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964. Rule 6A of the said Rules reads thus:- “(a) The services of an employee who has not already rendered more than three years’ continuous service from the date of his appointment shall be liable to termination at any time by a notice in writing given either by the employee to the appointing authority or by the appointing authority to the employee;” It is not the petitioner’s case that he continued on the post of Extra Departmental Branch Post Master/Agent for more than three years. In view of this position, as per law and also keeping in view the nature of job/engagement assigned to the petitioner, as would appear from the engagement/appointment letter, we have no manner of doubt that the procedure adopted by the authorities to dispense with the services of the petitioner is consistent with the Rules. We further find from the impugned order that, having regard to the facts appearing on record particularly the competing claims of two applicants of different original applications before the learned Tribunal, the same has been 7 disposed of in the manner noted hereinabove. If fresh advertisement is made and the petitioners apply for the same, they shall surely be considered on merits and in accordance with law by the authorities. 6. Seen thus, we are of the view that it shall not an appropriate exercise of our extraordinary jurisdiction to interfere with the directions issued by the learned Tribunal. All the applicants of original applications including the present writ petitioners shall have opportunity to apply and compete against each other purely on merits of course on fixation of the category for which the post shall belong to. We, accordingly, refuse to interfere with the impugned order. 7. In the result, both the writ petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. I agree. (S.K.Katriar,J) Patna High Court, Dated the 13th April, 2010 Sym/NAFR ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.) (S.K.Katriar,J)