IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 726 of 2007 Between: 1 The Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Proddatur North Sub Division, Cuddapah District. 2 The Superintendent of Post Offices, Proddatur Division, Proddatur. 3 The Postmaster General, Kurnool Region, Kurnool. 4 Union of India rep., by the Secretary to the Department of Posts, New Delhi. ..... PETITIONERS AND M. Venkata Rami Reddy S/o Venkata Reddy Mail Deliverer Ellampalli BO in Account with Onipenta SO Under Proddatur HO. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue preferably a Writ in the nature of Certiorari of any appropriate Writ, Order or direction, calling for the records pertaining to Order dt 21-02-2006 in O.A. No. 1025 of 2003 on the file of Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench Hyderabad, quash the same or pass such further or other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) Counsel for the Respondent.: MR.P.VEERA REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO :726 of 2007 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking to set aside the order, dated 21.2.2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.1025 of 2003. The respondent herein is the applicant before the Tribunal. Originally, he filed the above O.A. challenging the notification dated 1.9.2003. But, subsequently, when the matter was called for, he restricted his relief to keep his name in the waiting list as per DGP & T Lr.No.43-4/77-PEN, dated 23.2.1979, on the ground that he was provisionally appointed as EDMC/DA, Elklampelli, B.O., Head Quarters at Settivaripalli B.O. w.e.f. 3.1.1996 and after rendering 7 ½ years service, the applicant was terminated and a notification was issued by the respondents to fill up the post and that the respondents have not included his name in the waiting list in terms of the DGP & T letter. The tribunal having observed that since the applicant has rendered more than 7 ½ years of service, he comes under the purview of the DG, P & T instructions, allowed the O.A. and directed the respondents therein to extend the benefit of the DG, P & T letter and keep the name of the applicant in the list of thrown out candidates and consider his case for alternative appointment as per the instructions dated 23.2.1979 as and when his turn comes. Having aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed by the authorities. Heard the learned Assistant Solicitor General and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-applicant and perused the material available on record. Before going to deal with the present case on hand, it is relevant to extract the terms of DG, P & T letter, which reads as hereunder: “Efforts should be made to give alternative employment to ED agents who are appointed provisionally and subsequently discharged from service due to administrative reasons, if at the time of discharge they had put in not less than three years’ continuous approved service. In such cases, their names should be included in the waiting list of ED agents discharged from service, prescribed in D.G., P & T letter No.43-4/77-Pen., dated 23.2.1979.” The contents of the above letter makes it clear that it is the duty that is caste upon the respondents-writ petitioners to provide alternate employment to those who have completed three years of service as E.D agents. Now, coming to the facts of the case on hand, the applicant has rendered 7 ½ years of service. Apart from that, a perusal of the order impugned goes to show that in O.A.No.1640 of 2003 filed by a similarly situated person, the tribunal had directed the authorities to include his name in the thrown out candidates and consider his case for providing alternative appointment as per the instructions dated 23.2.1979 as and when his turn comes and the said order of the tribunal was upheld by this Court in W.P.No.2033 of 2005. In the above facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the terms of the DG P & T letter as well as the order passed in W.P.2033 of 2005 and in view of the requirement fulfilled by the applicant, We have no hesitation to hold that the tribunal is justified in allowing the claim of the applicant as stated in the order impugned. Therefore, the order of the tribunal needs no interference and hence, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari __________________ Justice G. Chandraiah Date: 13th March, 2008 Nn/Gurc. THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 726 of 2007 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 13/03/2008