IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 10.6.2008 Coram: The Honourable Mr.Justice P.K. MISRA and The Honourable Mr.Justice K.CHANDRU W. P. Nos. 15073, 20256 and 26407 of 2001; W.P. Nos. 414, 13509, 14051 and 32314 of 2002; W.P. Nos. 1133, 1800, 3705, 6758, 12826, 17991, and 26935 of 2003; W.P. Nos. 996, 22436, and 27164 to 27166 of 2004; and W.P. No. 6318 of 2005 and W.P.M.P. No. 22403 of 2001 in W.P. No. 15073 of 2001, W.P.M.P. No. 29865 of 2001 in W.P. No.20256 of 2001, W.P.M.P. Nos. 648 and 649 of 2002 in W.P. No. 414 of 2002, W.P.M.P.62699/02 in W.P.13509/02 W.P.M.P. No. 18953 of 2002 in W.P. No. 14051 of 2002, W.P.M.P. No. 46977 of 2002 in W.P. No.32314 of 2002, W.P.M.P. Nos. 4672 and 983 of 2003 in W.P. No. 3705 of 2003, W.P.M.P. No. 22459 of 2003 in W.P. No. 17991 of 2003, W.P.M.P. No. 32900 of 2003 in W.P. No. 26935 of 2003, W.P.M.P. No. 1017 of 2004 in W.P. No. 996 of 2004, W.P.M.P. No. 27159 of 2004 in W.P. No. 22436 of 2004, W.P.M.P. Nos. 33058 to 33061 of 2004 in W.P. Nos. 27164 to 27166 of 2004 and W.P.M.P. Nos. 6925 of 2005 and 386 of 2006 in W.P. No. 6318 of 2005 W.P. No. 15073 of 2001: M. SEKAR ... PETITIONER -VS- 1. UNION OF INDIA REP. BY SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES TIRUCHIRAPALLI DIVISION TIRUCHIRAPPALLI 2. SUB-DIVISIONAL INSPECTOR (POSTAL) ARIYALUR SUB DIVISION ARIYALUR https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. THE REGISTRAR CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI – 104 ... RESPONDENTS WP 20256/2001 T.NATARAJ ..PETITIONER -VS- 1.UNION OF INDIA REP. BY THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL, TAMIL NADU CIRCLE,CHENNAI 600 002. 2.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, NAMAKKAL DIVISION, NAMAKKAL -637 001. 3.THE SUB POST MATER, KUMARAPALAYAM-638 185 4.THE REGISTRAR, CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI- 600 104. ..RESPONDENTS W.P.26407/2001 K.BOJAMANI ..PETITIONER -VS- 1.UNION OF INDIA REP. BY THE DIRECTOR OF POSTAL SERVICES, O/O.THE POST MASTER GENERAL, CENTRAL REGION,TRICHY-620 001. TAMIL NADU. 2.THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, TRICHY DIVISION, TRICHY -620 001. 3.THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL REP. BY THE REGISTRAR, CHENNAI -104. ..RESPONDENTS WP 414/2002 T.RAMALINGAM ..PETITIONER -VS- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1.UNION OF INDIA REP.BY THE PRINCIPAL POST MASTER GENERAL, TAMIL NADU CIRCLE, MADRAS-600 002. 2.THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI DIVISION, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI- 620 001. 3.THE SUB DIVISIONAL INSPECTOR (POSTAL) ARIYALUR SUB DIVISION, ARIYALUR. 4.THE REGISTRAR, CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, MADRAS BENCH, CITY CIVIL COURT BUILDINGS, CHENNAI -600 104. ..RESPONDENTS W.P.NO.13509/02 1. UNION OF INDIA REP BY THE POSTMASTER GENERAL NORTH REGION TAMILNADU CIRCLE 2 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES. TIRUPATTUR DIVISION TRIUPATTUR- 635 601 3 THE SUB POSTMASTER HSG II SO,VANIYAMBADI ... PETITIONERS VS 1. M.BHOOPATHY 2 THE REGISTRAR, CAT CHENNAI ... RESPONDENTS W.P.14051/2002 K. RAJA ... PETITIONER VS 1. UNION OF INDIA REP BY ITS SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES TRICHIRAPALLI DIVIISON, TIRUCHIRAPALLI- 620 001 2 SUB -DIVISIONAL INPECTOR (POSTAL) ARIYALUR SUB DIVISION ARIYALUR- 621 704 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 THE BRANCH POST MASTER EDAYAKURICHI BRANCH SUB OFFICER ASAVEERANKUDIKADU SUB OFFICE PERAMBALUR DISTRICT 4. REGISTRAR CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL MADRAS BENCH MADRAS-104 ... RESPONDENTS W.P.32314/02 1. UNION OF INDIA REP BY THE DIRECTOR OF POSTAL SERVICES OFFICE OF THE POST GENERAL CENTRAL REGION, TRICHY - 620 001 ... PETITIONERS 2 SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES TRICHY DIVISION TRICHY VS 1.K.BOJAMANI 2.THE REGISTRAR CENTRAL ADMINSTRATIVE TRIBUNAL MADRAS BENCH, CITY CIVIL COURT BUILDINGS MADRAS-104 ... RESPONDENTS W.P.1133.2003 1.UNION OF INDIA REP.BY CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL, TAMILNADU CIRCLE, CHENNAI. 2 THE POST MASTER GENERAL, NORTHERN REGION, CHENNAI.2 3 THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, VELLORE DIVISION,VELLORE. ... PETITIONERS VS 1.MUTHUKUMAR, 2.2 THE REGISTRAR, CENTRAL ADMINSITRATIVE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI BENCH ADDL.CITY CIVIL COURT BUILDINGS, HIGH COURT, CHENNAI.104 ... RESPONDENTS https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.P.1800/2003 R. VASUKI ... PETITIONERS VS 1. REGISTRAR CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI -104 2. UNION OF INDIA REP BY TIS SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFIFER, TRICHY DIVISION, TIRUNELVELI 3. SUB DIVISIONAL INSPECTOR (POSTAL) VALLIYOOR SUB DIVISION VALLIYOOR- 627 117. 4 S.M.NOORUL VAGITHA BEGUM ... RESPONDENTS W.P.12826/03 1. UNION OF INDIA REP BY THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES TIRUNELVELI DIVISION TIRUNELVELI - 627 001 2. THE SUB DIVISIONAL INSPECTOR (POSTAL) VALLIOR SUB DIVISION, VALLIOOOR - 627 117. ... PETITIONERS VS 1. SMT. NOORUL VAGITHA BEGUM 2. R.VASUGI 3. THE REGISTRAR, CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI - 600104. ...RESPONDENTS WP.3705/03 : 1. UNION OF INDIA, THE POST MASTER GENERAL CENTRAL REGION, TRICHIRAPPALLI - 620001. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICER, SRIRANGAM DIVISION, SRIRANGAM, TRICHIRAPPALLIA - 621010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. THE ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICER, TURAIYUR EAST SUB DIVISION, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI - 621010. ... PETITIONER VS 1. S.PANNEERSELVAM 2. THE REGISTRAR, CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, MADRAS BENCH. .. RESPONDENTS WP.6758/03 : V.DHANASEKARAN .. PETITIONER VS 1. UNION OF INDIA REP. BY THE POST MASTER GENERAL, NORTHERN REGION, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI - 600002. 2. THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, PONDICHERRY DIVISION, PONDICHEERY - 605001. 3. THE ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, VILLUPURAM SUB DIVISION, VILLUPURAM. 4. THE REGISTRAR, CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, CHENNAI - 104. ..RESPONDENTS WP.17991/03 : 1. THE UNION OF INDIA REP. BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS, SANCHAR BHAVAN, NEW DELHI - 1. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, KANCHEEPURAM DIVISION, KANCHEEPURAM 631501. ..PETITIONERS VS https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1. M.V.NAKKEERAN 2. SMT. G.MALLESWARI 3. THE REGISTRAR, CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI BENCH, CHENNAI. ..RESPONDENTS WP.26935/03 : 1. THE UNION OF INDIA REP. BY THE POST MASTER GENERAL, CHENANI - 600002. 2. THE ASST SUPERINTENDENT OF POSTS, SUB DIVISION, ARAKKONAM - 631 001. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POSTS, SUB DIVISION, ARAKKONAM - 631 001. ..PETITIONERS VS 1. M.RAVI KUMAR 2. THE REGISTRAR CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI. ..RESPONDENTS WP.996/03 : 1. THE UNION OF INDIA REP. BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POSTS NEW DELHI. 2. THE POST MASTER GENERAL, NORHTERN REGION, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI - 600 002. 3. THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, VELLORE DIVISION, VELLORE - 6321001. ...PETITIONERS VS 1. V.GAJENDRAN 2. THE REGISTRAR, CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, MADRAS BENCH, ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL COURT BUILDINGS, CHENNAI - 600104. ..RESPONDENTS https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ WP.22436/04 M.MARUDHU ...PETITIONERS VS 1. THE UNION OF INDIA REP. BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, DAK BHAVAN, NEW DELHI - 110001 2. THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL, TAMIL NADU CIRCLE, CHENNAI - 600 002 3. THE DIRECTOR OF POSTAL SERVICES, O/O. THE POST MASTER GENERAL, SOUTHERN REGION, MADURAI. 4. THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, KOVILPATTI DIVISION, KOVILPATTI. 5. THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, CHENNAI - 600104. ..RESPONDENTS W.P.27164 TO 27166/04 1. UNION OF INDIA THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL TAMIL NADU CIRCLE, CHENNAI 600 002. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICER, SRIRANGAM DIVISION, SRIRANGAM 620 006. 3. THE ASST. SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICER, TURAIYUR EAST SUB DIVISION, TURAIYUR. .. PETITIONERS IN WP. 27164 TO 27166/04 VS 1. THE REGISTRAR, CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, MADRAS BENCH .. IST RESPONDENT IN WP. 27164 TO 27166/04 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. R.JAMBUKESWARAN .. 2ND RESPONDENT IN WP.27164/04 2. N.KAMARAJ .. 2ND RESPONDENT IN WP.27165//04 2. S.NATARAJAN ..2ND RESPONDENT IN WP 27166/04 WP. 6318/04 1. UNION OF INDIA REP BY THE POST MASTER GENERAL, WESTERN REGION, TAMIL NADU, COIMBATORE 641 002 2. THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICER, ERODE DIVISION, ERODE-638001 3. THE SUB DIVISIONAL INSPECTOR(POSTAL) BHAWANI SUB DIVISION, BHAVANI 638 301 ..PETITIONERS. VS 1. THE REGISTRAR, CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HIGH COURT, CAMPUS, CHENNAI. 2. K.DHANASEKAR .. RESPONDENTS. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus by calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 384 of 2001 dated 23.7.2001 confirming the order passed by the first respondent in Memo No. B 3/CAT/954/98 dated TR. 620 001 dated 26.3.2001 and quash the same and direct the respondents 1 and 2 to allow the petitioner to continue as Extra Departmental Delivery Agent / Mail Carrier and to confer all the benefits. W.P.20256/2001 Petition praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the original Application No.550/2000 dated 6.9.2001 on the file of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench and to quash the same, consequently by settling aside the order of the 3rd Respondent dated 11.5.2000 vide Memo No.4/EDSV/Kumarapalayam at Kumarapalayam issued by the Sub Post Master, Kumarapalayam 638 183, the 3rd Respondent herein and to direct the Respondents 1 to 3 continue the services of the petitioner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ as Extra Departmental Stamp vendor, kumarapalayam, Sub Office, Namakkal Division. W.P.26407/2001 Petition praying issue writ of Certiorari call for the records on the file of the respondents 3, 1 & 2 in connection with the order in o.A.No.490/2000 dated 11.12.2001 and in Memo no.STB/87-10/97 (pt) dt 12.4.2000 and Memo No.B.3/244 dt 25.4.2000 respectively and quash the same. W.P.414/2002 petition praying to issue a Writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the original Application No.610 of 2001 dated 9.10.2001 on the file of the central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench and to quash the same and to direct the Respondents 1 to 3 to continue the services of the petitioner as Extra Departmental Delivery Agent/mail carrier Kulumur Branch Office, Trichirappalli Division with all con committant service and monetary benefits. W.P.13509/02 petition praying to issue a Writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the order dated 20.2.2001 made in O.A.No.912/00 on the file of the central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, 2nd Respondent herein and quash the same. W.P.14051/02 petition praying to issue a writ of certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the orders passed by the central administrative Tribunal, madras Bench in O.A.No.1383/2000 dated 18.6.2001 confirming the order passed by the Ist respondent in Memo No.B3/CAT/964/99 dated 31.10.00 and quash the same. WP 32314/02 Petition praying to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the order dated 11.12.2001 in O.S.No.490/2000 passed by the 2nd Respondent and quash the same. WP 1133/03 Petition praying to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the 2nd Respondent relating to the Impugned order issued in O.A.No.1402/2000 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras bench and quash the same. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ WP 1800/2003 Petition praying to issue a writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai in O.A. No.243/2002 dated 1.11.2002 and quash the same. WP 12826/03 Petition praying to issue a writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the order dated 1.11.2002 passed in O.A. 243/2002 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai the 3rd Respondent herein and quash the same. WP 3705/03 Petition praying to issue a writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to O.A.No.560/2002 on the file of Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, the 2nd Respondent herein, and to quash the order dated 16.10.2002. WP 6758/03 Petition praying to issue a writ of Certiorari to call for the records connected with the impugned order in O.A.No.1233/01 dated 17.7.2002 on the file of the 4th Respondent and quash the same. WP 17991/03 Petition praying to issue a writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to O.A. 424/02 on the file of the 3rd Respondent Tribunal and to quash the order dated 22.11.02. WP 26935/03 Petition praying to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the order dated 5.8.02 made in the O.A. 14/02 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, the 2nd Respondent herein and quash the same. WP 996/03 Petition praying to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the 2nd Respondent relating to the Impugned order issued in O.A.No.206/2001 dated 22.11.2001 and quash the same. W.P.22436/04: Petition praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order dated 8.7.2004 given in O.A.1026/03 passed by the fifth Respondent and quash the same. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.P.27164 to 27166/04: These Petitions praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to O.A.587, 588, 589/02 dated 8.1.04 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, the Ist Respondent herein and to quash the common order dated 8.1.04. W.P.6318/04 Petition praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to O.A.No.430/2004 on the file of Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, the Ist Respondent herein, and to quash the order dated 23.12.2004. For Petitioner : Mr. C. Selvaraju, SC for Mr. S. Mani For Respondents 1&2 : Mr. K. Balachandran W.P.15073/01 For Petitioner : Mr.S.Mani For Respondent : K. Sridhar R1 & R2 W.P.20256/01 For Petitioner : Mrs S.Jothimani For Respondent : Mr.Udayakumar ACGSC R1 to R3 W.P.26407/01 For Petitioner : Mr.R.Singaravelan for Respondent : Mr.Udayakumar ACGSC. R1 & R2 W.P. 414/02 For Petitioner : Ms.S.Jothimani W.P.13509/02 For Petitioner : k.Balachandran For Respondent : K.m.Ramesh for R1 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.P.14051/02 For Petitioner : Mr.S.Mani For Respondent : ACGSC For R1 to 3 W.P.1133/03 For Petitioner : Mr.R.Balasubramanian For Respondent : Mr.Hari Paranthaman for R1 W.P.3705/03 For Petitioner : Mr.Udayakumar ACGSC For Respondent : Mr.K.M..Ramesh for R1 W.P.6758/03 For Petitioner : Mr.S.N. Ravichandran For Respondent : Mr.S.Krishnaswamy SccG for R1 W.P.26935/03 For Petitioner : S.M.Deenadayalan ACGSC For Respondent : S.Arunkumar for R1 W.P.996/04 For Petitioner : R.Balasubramanian For Respondent : D.Hari Paranthaman for R1 W.P.27164/04 to 27166 For Petitioner : Mr.S.Udayakumar ACGSC For Respondent : S.Ramaswamy Rajarajan for R2 W.P.6318/05: For Petitioner : S.Udayakumar For Respondent : Mrs.N.Parameswari. W.P.32314/02: For Petitioner :Mr.K.Balachandran For Respondent :Mr.R.Singaravelan. W.P.22436/04: For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramaswamy Rajarajan For Respondent : SCGSC for R1 to R4 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.P.17991/03: For Petitioner : Mr.U.Bharathidasan For Respondent : Mr.M.V.Nakkeeran for R1 W.P.1800/03: For Petitioner : Mr.M.S.Soundararajan For Respondent : Mr.V.Bharathidasan for R2 and R3 W.P.12826/03: For Petitioner : Mr.V.Bharathidasan For Respondent : Mr.R.Malaichamy for R1 : Mr.M.S.Soundararajan for R2 COMMON ORDER K. CHANDRU, J. Heard the arguments of learned counsels for private parties and the learned Assistant Central Government Standing Counsel representing the Union of India and perused the records. 2. In all these twenty writ petitions, the question raised is with regard to the procedure for recruitment with reference to the Extra Departmental staff in the Postal Department of the Union of India. The Recruitment Rules (RR) are a compilation of various executive orders and circulars issued by the Postal Department from time to time and they are not statutory in character. Subsequently, the said service was rechristened as Gramin Dak Sevak. Rules have also been framed for the various posts which are known as Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2001 [for short, 'GDS Rules']. The principle questions raised in these writ petitions are as follows:- (a) Whether preference shown to applicants who have scored highest marks in S.S.L.C./ Matriculation when the minimum qualification was only VIII Std. is proper? (b) Whether property or income criteria can be imposed as a pre- condition for selecting the candidates and the prescription of such criteria will be constitutionally valid in terms of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution? (c) Whether appointments made contrary to the executive instructions can be reviewed and rectified by superior officers by exercising power of review is valid? (d) If the power of review exercised is held to be valid, should there be a reasonable time limit prescribed for the said exercise? https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. Over the years, the Central Administrative Tribunals (CAT) and various High Courts have taken different views on the issues raised above. While some Benches of the CAT had taken the view that the inter se merit of the candidates with VIII Std. as its basis alone should be taken into account, some other Benches of the CAT had taken the view, after referring to the instructions, that preference can be shown for marks obtained in Matriculation also. 4. With reference to the income criteria, the Ernakulam Bench of CAT took the view that there cannot be any income / property criteria for getting into the employment. The said view was also confirmed by the High Court of Kerala vide its decision in Director General of Post Offices v. Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench [2002 (1) KLT 554]. While some Benches of the CAT followed this decision and disapproved the income / property criteria as a requirement, the other Benches of the CAT went strictly by the circular instructions prescribing such income criteria holding it as valid. 5. A Division Bench of this Court vide its judgment in Union of India, rep. by the Post Master General, Southern Region, Madurai and others v. Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench and others [2004 (2) M.L.J. 260 = 2004 (3) A.T.J. 86] upheld the property / income criteria prescribed under the relevant Rules. This decision also came to be followed by a subsequent Division Bench of this Court vide its decision dated 19.9.2006 in K. Sulochana v. K.G. Jayasankar and others (W.P. No. 33898 of 2002). 6. With reference to the power of review, different Benches of the CAT have reached opposite conclusions. In this regard, a Full Bench of the CAT, Hyderabad Bench in O.A. No. 57 of 1991 [N.Ambujakshi v. Union of India] held that Rule 16 of the Extra- Departmental Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964 did not confer power upon a higher administrative authority to revise the order of appointment purported to have been issued by a lower authority under Rule 3 of the said Rules. It was also held that the higher authority has neither inherent power or otherwise, to revise the orders of appointment passed by the lower administrative authority. In the meanwhile, the Department issued the instructions dated 13.11.1997 providing for review by the superior officers in case of an irregular appointment. The CAT Bench at Cuttack, vide its decision in Saroj Kumar Mohanty v. Union of India and others [2001 (1) A.T.J. 161], held that such a circular cannot nullify the judicial pronouncements of the Tribunal. The same view was taken by the Allahabad Bench of the CAT in Baijnath Tripathi v. Union of India and others [2001 (3) A.T.J. 285]. However, another Bench of the CAT at Chennai in C.Pughazhenthi v. Union of India in O.A. No. 609 of 2001, (disposed on 23.11.2001), upheld the validity of the circular dated 13.11.1997 providing for review of selection mode by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ subordinate authorities. The said Bench also held that the power of review, pursuant to the circular dated 13.11.1997, was prospective and it should be exercised within a reasonable time, viz., 3 to 6 months. 7. The variance of the opinion amongst different Benches led to the constitution of another Full Bench at Chennai to consider the correctness of the said opinion. The said Full Bench, by its order dated 08.01.2004, in O.A. Nos. 587 to 589 of 2002 held that the view of the Madras Bench in Pughazhenthi's case (cited supra) was wrong and that the circular dated 13.11.1997 was illegal. The Government, by an executive instruction, cannot nullify the previous decisions of the Tribunal and that the executive instructions do not provide for any such review. It also distinguished the judgment of the Kerala High Court taking a contrary view in paragraphs 22, 23 and 27 in its judgment which read as follows:- Para 22: "We were referred to the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of the Superintendent of Post Offices and others v. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal and another in O.P. No. 12575 of 1999 rendered on 14.11.2002. The Kerala High Court held that if the irregularities are found out, the same can be corrected. In other words, if on inspection, it is found that the appointments were done by doing malpractice, accepting bribes or totally against the rules or unqualified candidates are appointed, the same can be corrected. In the facts of that case, it was found that there was no allegation of malpractice nor was there any allegation that an unqualified candidate was appointed. Para 23: We have already referred to above, that the cases of malpractice cannot be equated with a case where a person had been appointed by an authority competent to appoint and there is substantial compliance of the rules and regulations. Therefore, the decision rendered by the Kerala High Court must be held to be distinguishable." Para 27: "From these principles, it is clear that the instructions which give unfettered powers to the higher authority, therefore, cannot be sustained." 8. After having held the said legal position, the CAT also took note of the amendment made in the year 2003 to the GDS (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2001 providing specifically for review of appointment made by the lower authority, by the superior authorities and stated that henceforth, such reviews are permissible in case of irregular appointment. In fact, this decision of the Full Bench is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ under challenge in W.P. Nos. 27164 to 27166 of 2004 in this batch. Following the aforesaid Full Bench, the CAT, Madras Bench, subsequently quashed several orders of review against which the Union of India had preferred some writ petitions which are listed in this batch cases. 9. In view of the commonality of the subject matter involved in these writ petitions, they were grouped together and heard by this Court and a common order is being passed. 10. Fortunately for this Court, the issues raised in these writ petitions are no longer res integra and covered by the binding precedents of the Supreme Court rendered in three separate decisions. 10 (a) Qualifications and preference:- In Surinder Singh v. Union of India and others (Civil Appeal No. 143 of 2001, disposed on 30.3.2007), the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the instructions giving preference to candidates with Matriculation qualification based on the instructions issued by the Department. The following passages found in pages 10 and 13 of the judgment may be usefully extracted:- "In our view, in service jurisprudence the prescription of preferential qualification not only refers to numeric superiority but is essentially related to better mental capacity, ability and maturity to shoulder the responsibilities, which are entrusted to the candidates after their selection to a particular post. All the more, it is important for efficient and effective administration. The basic object of prescribing a minimum qualification is to put a cut off level for a particular job in accordance with the minimum competency required for the performance of that job. The object of prescribing preferential qualification is to select the best amongst the better candidates who possess more competence than the others. Sub-clause (iv) of Clause 2 puts a limit with respect to preferential qualification by way of a clear stipulation that no preference should be given to the qualification above Matriculation. Hence, the preferential qualification was considered to be more effective and efficient and also it was a clear assumption that a candidate possessing the same is best suited for the post in question." ".... In these circumstances, the post of EDDA was notified to the Employment Exchange and general public by the respondent-Department. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had justified the selection and appointment of the appellant on the basis of marks https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ secured by him in Matriculation examination, which according to them is a preferential qualification, as per the Guidelines/Norms/Instructions prescribed by the Competent Authority." 10 (b) Power of Review by superior authorities:- The Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. Bikash Kuanar [2006 (8) SCC 192] upheld the view of the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court and restricted the scope of power of review. The relevant passages found from paragraphs 7 to 16 may be usefully reproduced below:- Para 7: "The Division Bench after hearing the counsel for the parties observed that the power of review is conferred by the statute. In case of an appointment made under the rules framed for the purpose of appointment, such appointment could not be cancelled either by the same authority or by the higher authorities in exercise of power of administrative exigency. Para 8: The High Court in the impugned judgment also stated that the civil rights had already accrued to the respondent who rendered one-and-a-half years of service. Once such civil rights had accrued, the authorities exercising their executive power cannot review the appointment.