M. SEKAR v. THE REGISTRARCENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALCHENNAI – 104

3 THE BRANCH POST MASTER EDAYAKURICHI BRANCH SUB OFFICER ASAVEERANKUDIKADU SUB OFFICE PERAMBALUR DISTRICT4. REGISTRAR CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALMADRAS BENCH MADRAS-104... RESPONDENTSW.P.32314/021. UNION OF INDIA REP BY THE DIRECTOR OF POSTAL SERVICES OFFICE OF THE POST GENERALCENTRAL REGION, TRICHY - 620 001... PETITIONERS2 SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES TRICHY DIVISION TRICHYVS1.K.BOJAMANI2.THE REGISTRAR CENTRAL ADMINSTRATIVE TRIBUNALMADRAS BENCH, CITY CIVIL COURT BUILDINGS MADRAS-104... RESPONDENTSW.P.1133.20031.UNION OF INDIA REP.BY CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL,TAMILNADU CIRCLE, CHENNAI.2 THE POST MASTER GENERAL, NORTHERN REGION, CHENNAI.23 THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES,VELLORE DIVISION,VELLORE.... PETITIONERSVS1.MUTHUKUMAR,2.2 THE REGISTRAR, CENTRAL ADMINSITRATIVE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI BENCHADDL.CITY CIVIL COURT BUILDINGS, HIGH COURT, CHENNAI.104... RESPONDENTS https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.P.1800/2003R. VASUKI... PETITIONERSVS1. REGISTRAR CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI -1042. UNION OF INDIAREP 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 ... RESPONDENTSW.P.12826/031. UNION OF INDIA REP BY THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES TIRUNELVELI DIVISION TIRUNELVELI - 627 0012. THE SUB DIVISIONAL INSPECTOR (POSTAL)VALLIOR SUB DIVISION,VALLIOOOR - 627 117.... PETITIONERSVS1. SMT. NOORUL VAGITHA BEGUM2. R.VASUGI3. THE REGISTRAR,CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,CHENNAI - 600104....RESPONDENTSWP.3705/03 :1. UNION OF INDIA,THE POST MASTER GENERALCENTRAL 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 VS1. S.PANNEERSELVAM2. THE REGISTRAR,CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,MADRAS BENCH...RESPONDENTS WP.6758/03 :V.DHANASEKARAN..PETITIONER VS1. UNION OF INDIA REP. BYTHE 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...RESPONDENTSWP.17991/03 :1. THE UNION OF INDIA REP. BYTHE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS,SANCHAR BHAVAN, NEW DELHI - 1.2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES,KANCHEEPURAM DIVISION,KANCHEEPURAM 631501...PETITIONERSVS https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

1. M.V.NAKKEERAN2. SMT. G.MALLESWARI3. THE REGISTRAR,CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,CHENNAI BENCH, CHENNAI...RESPONDENTSWP.26935/03 :1. THE UNION OF INDIA REP. BYTHE 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...PETITIONERSVS1. M.RAVI KUMAR2. THE REGISTRARCENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,CHENNAI...RESPONDENTSWP.996/03 :1. THE UNION OF INDIA REP. BYTHE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POSTSNEW DELHI.2. THE POST MASTER GENERAL,NORHTERN REGION,ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI - 600 002.3. THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES,VELLORE DIVISION,VELLORE - 6321001....PETITIONERSVS1. V.GAJENDRAN2. THE REGISTRAR,CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,MADRAS BENCH,ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL COURT BUILDINGS,CHENNAI - 600104...RESPONDENTS https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ WP.22436/04M.MARUDHU...PETITIONERSVS1. THE UNION OF INDIA REP. BYTHE DIRECTOR GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF POSTS,DAK BHAVAN, NEW DELHI - 1100012. THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL,TAMIL NADU CIRCLE,CHENNAI - 600 0023. 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. ..RESPONDENTSW.P.27164 TO 27166/041. UNION OF INDIA THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERALTAMIL 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 27166/04VS1. 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.27164/042. N.KAMARAJ.. 2ND RESPONDENT IN WP.27165//042. S.NATARAJAN..2ND RESPONDENT IN WP 27166/04WP. 6318/041. UNION OF INDIA REP BY THE POST MASTER GENERAL,WESTERN REGION,TAMIL NADU, COIMBATORE 641 0022. THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICER,ERODE DIVISION, ERODE-6380013. THE SUB DIVISIONAL INSPECTOR(POSTAL)BHAWANI SUB DIVISION,BHAVANI 638 301..PETITIONERS.VS1. THE REGISTRAR,CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALHIGH COURT, CAMPUS,CHENNAI.2. K.DHANASEKAR.. RESPONDENTS.Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prayingto issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus by calling for the recordspertaining to the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunalin O.A. No. 384 of 2001 dated 23.7.2001 confirming the order passedby the first respondent in Memo No. B 3/CAT/954/98 dated TR. 620 001dated 26.3.2001 and quash the same and direct the respondents 1 and 2to allow the petitioner to continue as Extra Departmental DeliveryAgent / Mail Carrier and to confer all the benefits.W.P.20256/2001Petition praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus callingfor the records pertaining to the original Application No.550/2000dated 6.9.2001 on the file of the Hon'ble Central AdministrativeTribunal, Madras Bench and to quash the same, consequently bysettling aside the order of the 3rd Respondent dated 11.5.2000 videMemo No.4/EDSV/Kumarapalayam at Kumarapalayam issued by the Sub PostMaster, Kumarapalayam 638 183, the 3rd Respondent herein and todirect 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.26407/2001Petition praying issue writ of Certiorari call for the records on thefile of the respondents 3, 1 & 2 in connection with the order ino.A.No.490/2000 dated 11.12.2001 and in Memo no.STB/87-10/97 (pt) dt12.4.2000 and Memo No.B.3/244 dt 25.4.2000 respectively and quash thesame.W.P.414/2002petition praying to issue a Writ of certiorarified mandamus callingfor the records pertaining to the original Application No.610 of 2001dated 9.10.2001 on the file of the central Administrative Tribunal,Madras Bench and to quash the same and to direct the Respondents 1 to3 to continue the services of the petitioner as Extra DepartmentalDelivery Agent/mail carrier Kulumur Branch Office, TrichirappalliDivision with all con committant service and monetary benefits.W.P.13509/02petition praying to issue a Writ of certiorari calling for therecords relating to the order dated 20.2.2001 made in O.A.No.912/00on the file of the central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, 2ndRespondent herein and quash the same.W.P.14051/02petition praying to issue a writ of certiorari, calling for therecords pertaining to the orders passed by the central administrativeTribunal, madras Bench in O.A.No.1383/2000 dated 18.6.2001 confirmingthe order passed by the Ist respondent in Memo No.B3/CAT/964/99 dated31.10.00 and quash the same.WP 32314/02Petition praying to issue a writ of certiorari calling for therecords relating to the order dated 11.12.2001 in O.S.No.490/2000passed by the 2nd Respondent and quash the same.WP 1133/03Petition praying to issue a writ of certiorari calling for therecords of the 2nd Respondent relating to the Impugned order issuedin O.A.No.1402/2000 on the file of the Central AdministrativeTribunal, Madras bench and quash the same. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ WP 1800/2003Petition praying to issue a writ of Certiorari calling for therecords pertaining to the order passed by the Central AdministrativeTribunal, Chennai in O.A. No.243/2002 dated 1.11.2002 and quash thesame.WP 12826/03Petition praying to issue a writ of Certiorari to call for therecords relating to the order dated 1.11.2002 passed in O.A. 243/2002on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai the 3rdRespondent herein and quash the same.WP 3705/03Petition praying to issue a writ of Certiorari calling for therecords pertaining to O.A.No.560/2002 on the file of CentralAdministrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, the 2nd Respondent herein, andto quash the order dated 16.10.2002.WP 6758/03Petition praying to issue a writ of Certiorari to call for therecords connected with the impugned order in O.A.No.1233/01 dated17.7.2002 on the file of the 4th Respondent and quash the same.WP 17991/03Petition praying to issue a writ of Certiorari calling for therecords pertaining to O.A. 424/02 on the file of the 3rd RespondentTribunal and to quash the order dated 22.11.02.WP 26935/03Petition praying to issue a writ of certiorari calling for therecords relating to the order dated 5.8.02 made in the O.A. 14/02 onthe file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, the 2nd Respondentherein and quash the same.WP 996/03Petition praying to issue a writ of certiorari calling for therecords of the 2nd Respondent relating to the Impugned order issuedin 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 therecords relating to the order dated 8.7.2004 given in O.A.1026/03passed 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 therecords pertaining to O.A.587, 588, 589/02 dated 8.1.04 on the fileof the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, the IstRespondent herein and to quash the common order dated 8.1.04.W.P.6318/04Petition praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for therecords pertaining to O.A.No.430/2004 on the file of CentralAdministrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, the Ist Respondent herein, andto quash the order dated 23.12.2004.For Petitioner : Mr. C. Selvaraju, SC for Mr. S. ManiFor Respondents 1&2: Mr. K. BalachandranW.P.15073/01 For Petitioner: Mr.S.ManiFor Respondent: K. Sridhar R1 & R2W.P.20256/01For Petitioner : Mrs S.JothimaniFor Respondent : Mr.Udayakumar ACGSC R1 to R3W.P.26407/01For Petitioner: Mr.R.Singaravelanfor Respondent : Mr.Udayakumar ACGSC. R1 & R2W.P. 414/02For Petitioner: Ms.S.JothimaniW.P.13509/02For Petitioner : k.Balachandran For Respondent : K.m.Ramesh for R1 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.P.14051/02For Petitioner : Mr.S.ManiFor Respondent : ACGSC For R1 to 3 W.P.1133/03For Petitioner: Mr.R.BalasubramanianFor Respondent: Mr.Hari Paranthaman for R1W.P.3705/03For Petitioner: Mr.Udayakumar ACGSCFor Respondent: Mr.K.M..Ramesh for R1W.P.6758/03For Petitioner: Mr.S.N. RavichandranFor Respondent: Mr.S.Krishnaswamy SccG for R1W.P.26935/03For Petitioner: S.M.Deenadayalan ACGSCFor Respondent: S.Arunkumar for R1W.P.996/04For Petitioner: R.BalasubramanianFor Respondent: D.Hari Paranthaman for R1W.P.27164/04 to 27166For Petitioner: Mr.S.Udayakumar ACGSCFor Respondent : S.Ramaswamy Rajarajan for R2W.P.6318/05:For Petitioner: S.UdayakumarFor Respondent: Mrs.N.Parameswari.W.P.32314/02:For Petitioner:Mr.K.BalachandranFor Respondent:Mr.R.Singaravelan.W.P.22436/04:For Petitioner: Mr.S.Ramaswamy RajarajanFor Respondent: SCGSC for R1 to R4 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.P.17991/03:For Petitioner: Mr.U.BharathidasanFor Respondent: Mr.M.V.Nakkeeran for R1W.P.1800/03:For Petitioner: Mr.M.S.SoundararajanFor Respondent: Mr.V.Bharathidasan for R2 and R3W.P.12826/03:For Petitioner : Mr.V.BharathidasanFor Respondent : Mr.R.Malaichamy for R1: Mr.M.S.Soundararajan for R2COMMON ORDERK. CHANDRU, J.Heard the arguments of learned counsels for private parties andthe learned Assistant Central Government Standing Counselrepresenting the Union of India and perused the records.2.In all these twenty writ petitions, the question raised iswith regard to the procedure for recruitment with reference to theExtra Departmental staff in the Postal Department of the Union ofIndia. The Recruitment Rules (RR) are a compilation of variousexecutive orders and circulars issued by the Postal Department fromtime 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 asGramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2001 [for short,'GDS Rules']. The principle questions raised in these writpetitions are as follows:-(a)Whether preference shown to applicants who have scored highestmarks in S.S.L.C./ Matriculation when the minimum qualificationwas 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 ofsuch criteria will be constitutionally valid in terms ofArticles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution? (c)Whether appointments made contrary to the executive instructionscan be reviewed and rectified by superior officers by exercisingpower of review is valid?(d)If the power of review exercised is held to be valid, shouldthere be a reasonable time limit prescribed for the saidexercise? 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 issuesraised above. While some Benches of the CAT had taken the view thatthe inter se merit of the candidates with VIII Std. as its basisalone should be taken into account, some other Benches of the CAT hadtaken the view, after referring to the instructions, that preferencecan be shown for marks obtained in Matriculation also.4.With reference to the income criteria, the Ernakulam Benchof CAT took the view that there cannot be any income / propertycriteria for getting into the employment. The said view was alsoconfirmed by the High Court of Kerala vide its decision in DirectorGeneral of Post Offices v. Central Administrative Tribunal,Ernakulam Bench [2002 (1) KLT 554]. While some Benches of the CATfollowed this decision and disapproved the income / property criteriaas a requirement, the other Benches of the CAT went strictly by thecircular instructions prescribing such income criteria holding it asvalid.5.A Division Bench of this Court vide its judgment in Unionof India, rep. by the Post Master General, Southern Region, Maduraiand others v. Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, MadrasBench and others [2004 (2) M.L.J. 260 = 2004 (3) A.T.J. 86] upheldthe property / income criteria prescribed under the relevant Rules.This decision also came to be followed by a subsequent Division Benchof 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 ofthe CAT have reached opposite conclusions. In this regard, a FullBench 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 conferpower upon a higher administrative authority to revise the order ofappointment purported to have been issued by a lower authority underRule 3 of the said Rules. It was also held that the higherauthority has neither inherent power or otherwise, to revise theorders of appointment passed by the lower administrative authority.In the meanwhile, the Department issued the instructions dated13.11.1997 providing for review by the superior officers in case ofan irregular appointment. The CAT Bench at Cuttack, vide itsdecision in Saroj Kumar Mohanty v. Union of India and others [2001(1) A.T.J. 161], held that such a circular cannot nullify thejudicial pronouncements of the Tribunal. The same view was taken bythe Allahabad Bench of the CAT in Baijnath Tripathi v. Union ofIndia and others [2001 (3) A.T.J. 285]. However, another Bench of theCAT at Chennai in C.Pughazhenthi v. Union of India in O.A. No. 609of 2001, (disposed on 23.11.2001), upheld the validity of thecircular 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 powerof review, pursuant to the circular dated 13.11.1997, was prospectiveand it should be exercised within a reasonable time, viz., 3 to 6months. 7.The variance of the opinion amongst different Benches led tothe constitution of another Full Bench at Chennai to consider thecorrectness of the said opinion. The said Full Bench, by its orderdated 08.01.2004, in O.A. Nos. 587 to 589 of 2002 held that the viewof the Madras Bench in Pughazhenthi's case (cited supra) was wrongand that the circular dated 13.11.1997 was illegal. The Government,by an executive instruction, cannot nullify the previous decisionsof the Tribunal and that the executive instructions do not providefor any such review. It also distinguished the judgment of theKerala High Court taking a contrary view in paragraphs 22, 23 and 27in its judgment which read as follows:-Para 22:"We were referred to the decision of the Kerala HighCourt in the case of the Superintendent of Post Officesand others v. The Registrar, Central AdministrativeTribunal and another in O.P. No. 12575 of 1999 renderedon 14.11.2002. The Kerala High Court held that if theirregularities are found out, the same can becorrected. In other words, if on inspection, it isfound that the appointments were done by doingmalpractice, accepting bribes or totally against therules or unqualified candidates are appointed, the samecan be corrected. In the facts of that case, it wasfound that there was no allegation of malpractice norwas there any allegation that an unqualified candidatewas appointed.Para 23:We have already referred to above, that the cases ofmalpractice cannot be equated with a case where aperson had been appointed by an authority competent toappoint and there is substantial compliance of therules and regulations. Therefore, the decisionrendered by the Kerala High Court must be held to bedistinguishable."Para 27:"From these principles, it is clear that theinstructions which give unfettered powers to the higherauthority, therefore, cannot be sustained."8.After having held the said legal position, the CAT also tooknote of the amendment made in the year 2003 to the GDS (Conduct andEmployment) Rules, 2001 providing specifically for review ofappointment made by the lower authority, by the superior authoritiesand stated that henceforth, such reviews are permissible in case ofirregular 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 Unionof India had preferred some writ petitions which are listed in thisbatch cases. 9.In view of the commonality of the subject matter involved inthese writ petitions, they were grouped together and heard by thisCourt and a common order is being passed.10.Fortunately for this Court, the issues raised in these writpetitions are no longer res integra and covered by the bindingprecedents of the Supreme Court rendered in three separate decisions.10 (a)Qualifications and preference:-In Surinder Singh v. Union of India and others (Civil AppealNo. 143 of 2001, disposed on 30.3.2007), the Supreme Court upheld thevalidity of the instructions giving preference to candidates withMatriculation qualification based on the instructions issued by theDepartment. The following passages found in pages 10 and 13 of thejudgment may be usefully extracted:-"In our view, in service jurisprudence theprescription of preferential qualification not onlyrefers to numeric superiority but is essentiallyrelated to better mental capacity, ability and maturityto shoulder the responsibilities, which are entrustedto the candidates after their selection to a particularpost. All the more, it is important for efficient andeffective administration. The basic object ofprescribing a minimum qualification is to put a cut offlevel for a particular job in accordance with theminimum competency required for the performance of thatjob. The object of prescribing preferentialqualification is to select the best amongst the bettercandidates who possess more competence than the others.Sub-clause (iv) of Clause 2 puts a limit with respectto preferential qualification by way of a clearstipulation that no preference should be given to the qualification aboveMatriculation. Hence, the preferential qualificationwas considered to be more effective and efficient andalso it was a clear assumption that a candidatepossessing the same is best suited for the post inquestion." ".... In these circumstances, the post of EDDAwas notified to the Employment Exchange and generalpublic by the respondent-Department. The respondentNos. 1 and 2 had justified the selection andappointment of the appellant on the basis of marks https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ secured by him in Matriculation examination, whichaccording to them is a preferential qualification, asper the Guidelines/Norms/Instructions prescribed by theCompetent Authority." 10 (b)Power of Review by superior authorities:-The Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. BikashKuanar [2006 (8) SCC 192] upheld the view of the Division Bench ofthe Orissa High Court and restricted the scope of power of review.The relevant passages found from paragraphs 7 to 16 may be usefullyreproduced below:-Para 7:"The Division Bench after hearing the counsel for theparties observed that the power of review is conferredby the statute. In case of an appointment made underthe rules framed for the purpose of appointment, suchappointment could not be cancelled either by the sameauthority or by the higher authorities in exercise ofpower of administrative exigency.Para 8:The High Court in the impugned judgment also statedthat the civil rights had already accrued to therespondent who rendered one-and-a-half years ofservice. Once such civil rights had accrued, theauthorities exercising their executive power cannotreview the appointment.Para 9:The Division Bench held that the administrativeinstructions have no statutory force, therefore, thesecannot be enforced and following such instructions, therespondent’s appointment could not be legallycancelled.Para 10:The Division Bench also directed that the respondent begiven an opportunity to resume his duties within 30days from the date of its order.Para 11:The appellants, aggrieved by the said judgment,preferred a special leave petition before this Court.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties atlength. Mr T.S. Doabia, the learned Senior Counselappearing for the appellants, submitted that once anirregular or unconstitutional appointment has beenmade, the higher authorities have the power to reviewthe appointment. Moreover, the department has issued OMNo. 19-15/ 2002-GDS dated 9-5-2003 which empowers thesuperior authority to rectify the irregularity in suchcases on its motion or otherwise. Mr Doabia contendedthat the power to rectify any irregularity cannot bequestioned. Mr Doabia also contended that an employee https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ who has been appointed irregularly cannot claim anyright of recruitment. Nevertheless, the respondent wasgiven a show-cause notice under the rules before hisappointment was terminated. He further submitted that,in the instant case, the respondent and other twocandidates applied for the post of EDDA. Admittedly,all the candidates possessed not only the minimumeducational qualification required for the said posti.e. VIII standard but were matriculates. Though therespondent in all respects was qualified to beappointed to the said post but according to theappellants one Pitamber Majhi had secured higher marksthan the respondent in the matriculation examinationand his claim could not have been ignored. According tothe appellants, the irregularity which had crept inwith regard to appointment to the said post could notbe perpetuated for eternity. Therefore, the higherauthorities of the department were justified inrectifying the irregularity. The Division Bench did notaccept the plea of the appellants being contrary tolaw. In this view of the matter it has becomeimperative to examine correct position of law.Para 12:The matter relating to appointment or recruitment ofEDDA is not governed by any statute but by departmentalinstructions. It is now trite that if a mistake iscommitted in passing an administrative order, the samemay be rectified. Rectification of a mistake, however,may in a given situation require compliance with theprinciples of natural justice. It is only in a casewhere the mistake is apparent on the face of therecord, a rectification thereof is permissible withoutgiving any hearing to the aggrieved party.Para 13:The respondent was recruited not only on the basis ofmarks obtained by him in the matriculation examinationbut also upon consideration of various other criterianecessary therefor. He filed all necessary andrequisite documents. The candidature of all thecandidates has been considered on their own merits.Only because one Pitamber Majhi had obtained highermarks in the matriculation examination, the sameby itself should not have been a ground for cancellingthe order of recruitment passed in favour ofrespondent.Para 14:When a Selection Committee recommends selection of aperson, the same cannot be presumed to have been donein a mechanical manner in absence of any allegation offavouritism or bias. A presumption arises in regard tothe correctness of the official act. The party who https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ makes any allegation of bias or favouritism is requiredto prove the same. In the instant case, no suchallegation was made. The selection process was notfound to be vitiated. No illegality was brought to ournotice. In this view of the matter, we are of theopinion that the said Pitamber Majhi by reason ofhigher marks obtained by him in the matriculationexamination also cannot be said to be a bettercandidate than the respondent herein. In this view ofthe matter, we do not find any fault with the impugnedjudgment of the High Court.Para 15:The Division Bench of the High Court, in our consideredview, correctly applied the law, whichhas beencrystallised in a number of decisions of this Court.Para 16:Indisputably, the respondent has fulfilled all theessential terms and conditions for the appointment tothe said post. The respondent alone had submitted allnecessary and required documents before the dateprescribed by the appellants. It may also be pertinentto mention that at the time of selection the respondentwas the only one who had the experience of workingcontinuously on the said post for a period of one-and-a-half years. Perhaps, all these factors cumulativelypersuaded the authorities concerned to select therespondent to the said post."10 (c)Income / property criteria as a pre-condition forrecruitment:-The Supreme Court in Smt. Kiran Singh v. Union of India[2007 (9) SCC 716] dealt with such an issue. The relevant passagesfound in paragraphs 19 and 20 of the said judgment may be usefullyreproduced below:-Para 19:"CAT allowed the application of Respondent 5 merely onthe sole ground that as Respondent 5 has secured moremarks in the High School examination as against theappellant but it has lost sight of the othereligibility conditions contained in the Service Rulesand the Circular governing the selection of thecandidate to the post in question. The High Court inits impugned orders has not recorded independentreasons except to agree with the order of CAT.Para 20:In the facts and circumstances of the case, in our viewthe order of CAT which has been affirmed by the HighCourt is manifestly erroneous and cannot be sustained.The appellant and Respondent 5 both have qualified theHigh School examination by securing first division. Theeligibility criterion for the selection of thecandidate to the post of EDBPM as per the Service Rules https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ was not only the merit between the two candidates inHigh School examination but the additional criterionwas that the candidate must be one who has “adequatemeans of livelihood derived from landed property orimmovable assets” if the candidate is otherwiseeligible for appointment. The instructions governingthe eligibility of the candidates also provide that noweightage will be given for any higher qualification.The appellant has fulfilled the essential qualificationand required eligibility criterion and as such herselection to hold the post in question was validwhereas Respondent 5 was not eligible to be appointedon the post for lack of income criterion in terms ofthe Circular."11.The above three pronouncements of the Supreme Courtcompletely cover the issues raised in these writ petitions.However, before proceeding with the cases of individuals, it isnecessary to refer to the relevant Rules framed by the PostalDepartment in this regard.12.With reference to educational qualification, the followingis the requirement prescribed by them."2. Educational Qualifications:ED Sub-Postmasters and EDBranch Postmasters: Matriculation, [The selection should bebased on the marks secured in theMatriculation or equivalent examinations.No weightage need be given for anyqualification(s) higher thanMatriculation.]ED Delivery AgentsED Stamp Vendors and Allother Categories of EDAs.VIII Standard. Preference may be givento the candidates with Matriculationqualifications. No weightage should begiven for any qualification higher thanMatriculation. Should have sufficientworking knowledge of the regionallanguage and simple arithmetic so as tobe able to discharge their dutiessatisfactorily. Categories such as EDMessengers should also have enoughknowledge of English."13.With reference to power of review, the Union of India hadamended the 2001 Rules and had provided for a specific power on thehigher authorities with reference to irregular appointments as notedalready. Rule 2 of the amendment introduced in the year 2003 readsas follows:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "2.In the Department of Posts, Gramin Dak Sevaks(Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2001, in Rule 4, aftersub-rule (2), the following sub-rule shall beinserted, namely:"(3)Notwithstanding anything contained inthese rules, any authority superior to theAppointing Authority as shown in theSchedule, may, at any time, either on itsown motion or otherwise call for the recordsrelating to the appointment of Gramin DakSevaks made by the Appointing Authority, andif such Appointing Authority appears-(a)to have exercised a jurisdiction notvested in it by any law or rules time beingin force; or (b)to have failed to exercise ajurisdiction so vested; or (c)to have acted in the exercise of itsjurisdiction illegally or with materialirregularity;such Superior Authority may, after giving anopportunity of being heard, makes such orderas it thinks fit."14.With reference to the income criteria, the Government ofIndia, Department of Posts, vide their order dated 17.9.2003,dispensed with the said criteria. The relevant portion of theinstructions reads as follows:-"2.The preferential condition of income derivedfrom landed property or immovable assets as laid downvide letter, dated 6.12.1993, which was extended toall GDSs vide Department of Posts (Conduct andEmployment) Rules, 2001 has come for judicial scrutinybefore various benches of the Hon'ble CentralAdministrative Tribunal and High Courts.3.Against the aforesaid backdrop, the wholematter had been re-examined in this office in itsentirety in consultation with Ministry of Law, whichhas also termed the above condition as violative ofConstitutional provisions. The above matter wasplaced before the Postal Services Board. The PostalServices Board considered the above issue and also theissue of enhanced security in view of increased cashhandling liability of GDSs. Keeping in view all therelevant considerations and after carefuldeliberation, the Postal Services Board has decided asfollows:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.1.The condition of income preferably derivedfrom landed property or immovable assets forrecruitment to the posts of Gramin Dak Sevaks (GDSs)including GDS BPM / SPM, will be deleted."15.With reference to the power of review and income criteria,the amendment to the Rules are only prospective and it cannot have abearing on the earlier cases disposed of by the CAT. Therefore, asper the Rules in existence and as interpreted by the Supreme Court,the individual cases will have to be disposed of.16.1.W.P. No. 15073 of 2001 (M. Sekar v. Union of India):-16.1.1.This writ petition is filed against O.A. No. 384 of2001. The petitioner had secured 285/500 in the S.S.L.C.Examination. He was provisionally appointed as an Extra-Departmental Delivery Agent [for short, 'EDDA'] on 01.5.1998. Whenhis services were terminated, he challenged the same in O.A. No. 954of 1998. By an order dated 06.9.2001, the CAT allowed the O.A. anddirected the Department to issue fresh proceedings after complyingwith principles of natural justice. The fresh proceedings ended inthe termination of service of the petitioner. The petitionerchallenged the said order in O.A. No. 384 of 2001 on the ground thatonly the marks obtained in VIII Std. must be considered. The saidO.A. was dismissed after holding that the educational qualificationprescribed therein provides for preference to the marks obtained inMatriculation. It is against this order, this writ petition isfiled.16.1.2.In the light of the above legal discussion, the orderpassed by the CAT does not call for any interference and accordingly,this writ petition will stand dismissed.16.2.W.P. No. 20256 of 2001 (T. Nataraj v. UOI):-16.2.1.This writ petition was filed against the order of theCAT dated 06.9.2001 made in O.A. No. 550 of 2000. The petitioner wasappointed as an ED Stamp Vendor on 01.01.1997 provisionally. Theregular post was notified on 29.5.1999. The petitioner had completedonly X Std. and among the 43 applicants, who had responded pursuantto the notification, 36 were having S.S.L.C. Qualification. Thepetitioner was given a show cause notice on 18.3.2000 and hechallenged the fresh selection stating that the selection should beconfined to basic qualification of VIII Std. candidate only and nopreference can be shown on the basis of other qualifications. TheO.A. was dismissed on 06.9.2001 after referring to the educationalqualification prescribed. It is against this order, the writpetition is filed.16.2.2.In the light of the above legal precedents, the orderpassed by the CAT does not call for any interference and accordingly,this writ petition will stand dismissed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

16.3.W.P. No. 26407 of 2001 (K. Bhojamani v. UOI) and W. P. No. 32314 of 2002 (UOI v. K.Bhojamani):-16.3.1.Both the writ petitions are directed against the orderdated 11.12.2001 passed by the CAT in O.A. No. 490 of 2001. Thepetitioner was a Graduate and he was appointed as an Extra-Departmental Branch Postmaster [for short, 'EDBPM']. While thepetitioner had secured 251/500 marks in S.S.L.C., there was anothercandidate by name, Thavamani, who had secured 350/500 marks. Thesuperior authorities found that there were 17 candidates sponsored bythe Employment Exchange and 28 names were kept in the dovetailedlist. Without considering the merits of those candidates, thepetitioner's appointment was made and he was given a show causenotice for cancelling his appointment. The CAT, by an order dated11.12.2001, found that the appointment of the petitioner Bhojamaniwas irregular on the ground that at the time of appointment, thepetitioner did not have the income criteria and it cannot be postselection criteria and upheld his termination as confirmed by thesuperior authority by order dated 12.4.2000. In the same order, theCAT directed fresh selection to go on but confined the selection onlyto the original candidates called for certificate verification. 16.3.2.While the petitioner K. Bhojamani challenged the orderupholding his termination, the Union of India challenged the order ofthe CAT directing the selection to be confined with the candidateswho had already responded. Pending the writ petition, interim staywas made absolute on 20.9.2004. 16.3.3.In the light of the above legal precedents, W.P. No.26401 of 2001 filed by K. Bhojamani will stand dismissed. Once theselection is set aside, it is open to the Department to advertiseafresh calling for applications. This is all the more so sinceseven years have elapsed since the earlier notification. Therefore,W.P. No. 32314 of 2002 will stand allowed and the order of the CATin O.A. No. 490 of 2000 dated 11.12.2001 in so far as it relates torestricting the zone of consideration will stand set aside.16.4.W.P. No. 414 of 2002 (T. Ramalingam v. Union of India):-16.4.1.This writ petition is directed against the order of theCAT dated 09.10.2001 made in O.A. No. 610 of 2001. Eight weeks'stay was granted by this Court on 08.01.2000 and thereafter, it wasnot extended. The petitioner was a failed S.S.L.C. candidate butnevertheless appointed provisionally. A show cause notice was givenby the Department and he was terminated from service. It was statedthat the selecting authority did not consider the S.S.L.C. marks forgiving preference and there were three candidates who had securedmore marks in S.S.L.C. The O.A. was dismissed upholding the reviewdone by the Department. It is against this order, this writpetition has been filed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

16.4.2.As pointed out by the Supreme Court, if there arematerial irregularities, review can be done by the authorities. Inthe light of the same, this writ petition stands dismissed.16.5.W.P.No. 13509 of 2002 (UOI v. M. Bhoopathy):-16.5.1.This writ petition is filed by the Union of Indiaagainst the order of the CAT dated 20.02.2001 made in O.A. No. 912of 2000. The first respondent was appointed as an ED Packer on06.02.1996. The superior officers, by exercising the so-calledreview, issued a show cause notice dated 07.9.1998 and after gettinghis explanation, terminated his service on 09.8.2000. The CAT heldthat though there is a power of review available pursuant to thecircular dated 13.11.1997, it cannot have any retrospective effectand, therefore, the review was invalid. It also found that thefirst respondent has qualification to hold the post. In that view ofthe matter, the first respondent was directed to be restored inservice. It is against this order, the present writ petition hasbeen filed.16.5.2.In the light of the judgment of the Supreme Courtreferred to above, the order passed by the CAT does not call for anyinterference and accordingly, this writ petition will stand dismissed.16.6.W.P. No. 14051 of 2002 (K. Raja v. UOI):-16.6.1.This writ petition is directed against the order of theCAT dated 18.6.2001 made in O.A. No. 1383 of 2000. The petitioner wasappointed as an EDDA on 06.01.1999 and he joined in service on21.01.1999. After five days of his appointment, he was not allowedto continue in service. The petitioner moved the CAT with O.A. No.113 of 1999. The CAT directed the respondent to follow theprescribed procedure. Pursuant to the said direction, an order waspassed by the Post Master General, Tamil Nadu, dated 31.10.2000 andit was found that there were more than one applicant, who have doneS.S.L.C. whereas the petitioner had not completed S.S.L.C.Therefore, fresh selection was ordered. Aggrieved by the saidaction, the petitioner moved the CAT. The O.A. was dismissedupholding the stand of the Department.16.6.2.In the light of the above legal precedents, there is nosubstance in the writ petition. Hence, this writ petition will standdismissed.16.7.W.P. No. 1133 of 2003 (UOI v. Muthukumar):-16.7.1.The Union of India has filed this writ petitionchallenging the order of the CAT dated 06.11.2001 made in O.A. No.1402 of 2000. The CAT, following the earlier Full Bench Judgment of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the CAT, held that the power of review permitted by the circulardated 13.11.1997, was not available and allowed the O.A.Subsequently, another Full Bench in O.A. No. 587 of 2002 and othercases, vide order dated 08.01.2007, took a similar view. The saidview taken by the CAT is in consonance with the judgment rendered bythe Supreme Court in Bikash Kuanar's case (cited supra). 16.7.2.In the light of the same, there is no infirmity in theorder passed by the CAT and hence, this writ petition will standdismissed.16.8. W.P. No. 1800 of 2003 (R. Vasuki v. Registrar of Central Administrative Tribunal and others) and 12826 of 2003(Union of India v. Noorul Wahida Begum):-16.8.1. Both the writ petitions are directed against the order ofthe CAT dated 01.11.2002 made in O.A. No. 243 of 2002. In both thewrit petitions, the order in favour of Noorul Wahida Begum(contesting respondent) is under challenge both by the privateindividual and the Union of India. In the selection process, oneSenthilkumar, who had secured 448/500 in the S.S.L.C. Examination wasselected. Since the said candidate did not join, the selection wasmade in favour of R. Vasuki, who had secured only 372/500. NoorulWahida Begum, who had secured 443/500 and who was second in rank,challenged the appointment in favour of R. Vasuki in O.A. No. 243 of2002, which was allowed by the CAT and Noorul Wahida Begum wasdirected to be appointed. 16.8.2. The Union of India contended that the order of the CATwas erroneous because the contesting respondent Noorul Wahida Begum,though was second in the merit, did not produce any documentsrelating to property and income and, therefore, she was excluded inaccordance with the instructions in this regard. 16.8.3. However, the CAT, relying upon the judgment of theKerala High Court in 2002 (1) K.L.T. 554 (cited supra), held that theincome criteria was not essential requirement and set aside theselection made in favour of R. Vasuki. But in the light of thejudgment of the Supreme Court in Surinder Singh's case, the order ofthe CAT is liable to be set aside and accordingly, set aside. Boththe writ petitions are allowed.16.9.W.P. No. 3705 of 2003 (UOI v. Panneerselvam):-16.9.1.The writ petition challenges the order of the CAT dated16.10.2002 made in O.A. No. 560 of 2002. The first respondent wasappointed as an EDDA on 15.9.1999. In the guise of reviewing thesaid order, after a period of three years on 29.4.2002, a show causenotice was given to him and he was terminated from service on21.6.2002. The CAT found that though among the applicants, therewas a candidate with higher marks in S.S.L.C., viz., 390/600, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ first respondent had obtained only 307/600. The candidate with thehigher marks had submitted a defective application, viz., he did notsign the application, and that the date of birth furnished by acandidate varied from the original records. Therefore, the CATheld that there was nothing wrong in the selection made in favour ofthe first respondent and allowed the O.A. by its order dated16.10.2002. 16.9.2.It must also be stated that there cannot be review ofan order after three years and the order passed by the CAT is inconsonance with the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in BikashKuanar's case (cited supra). In the light of the same, there is noinfirmity in the order passed by the CAT and hence, this writpetition will stand dismissed.16.10. W.P. No. 6758 of 2003 (V. Dhanasekaran v. UOI):-16.10.1.This writ petition is directed against the order of theCAT dated 17.7.2002 made in O.A. No. 1233 of 2001. The petitioner wasappointed as an EDDA / MC in March 1999. In the selection, therewere 12 candidates including the petitioner. For no reason, thepetitioner was asked to hand over the charge. He filed O.A. No. 789of 2000 and the CAT directed the respondents to conduct a freshenquiry. When an order was passed without reasons, once again, O.A.No. 378 of 2001 was filed and the CAT directed the respondents toassign reasons. It was found that the post was not reserved forSC candidate and it was an OC vacancy. While the petitioner hadsecured 266/500, one other applicant by name, G. Veerabadran hadobtained 358/500. Therefore, the selection was irregular. Thoughit was argued that there is no power of review, the CAT held thatselecting the petitioner as if it was SC vacancy was wrong. Hence,the O.A. was dismissed on 17.7.2002 holding that there was nothingwrong in the Department calling for fresh nominations. Againstthe said order, the present writ petition has been filed. 16.10.2.It must also be stated that there cannot be a review ofan order after three years and the order passed by the CAT is inconsonance with the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in BikashKuanar's case (cited supra). In the light of the same, there is noinfirmity in the order passed by the CAT and hence, this writpetition will stand dismissed.16.11. W.P. No. 17991 of 2003 (UOI v. M. V. Nakkeeran):-16.11.1. The Union of India has filed the present writ petitionagainst the order of the CAT dated 22.11.2002 made in O.A. No. 424 of2002. The first respondent challenged his termination order beforethe CAT stating that since he had the highest marks among theapplicants, he should be selected and that no economic criteriashould be followed. The CAT allowed the O.A. after following the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ judgment of the Kerala High Court in 2002 (1) K.L.T. 554 (citedsupra). This view of the CAT is completely erroneous in thelight of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Smt. Kiran Singh (citedsupra). 16.11.2. However, the learned counsel for the first respondentbrought to our notice the judgment of the Division Bench of thisCourt in Union of India v. Central Administrative Tribunal andanother, disposed on 01.02.2008, and prayed for a similar order. Inthat case, this Court taking note of the subsequent amendment to theRules relating to immovable property and upheld the selection of thecandidate as he was meritorious. At the time of rendering the saiddecision, the decision of the Supreme Court in Smt. Kiran Singh'scase was not brought to the notice of this Bench. Therefore, we arenot persuaded to follow our earlier order relied on by the firstrespondent. 16.11.3. In the light of the above, the writ petition will standallowed and the order of the CAT will stand set aside. 16.12. W.P. No. 26935 of 2003 (UOI v. M. Ravikumar):-16.12.1. This writ petition is filed against the order of the CATdated 05.8.2002 made in O.A. No. 14 of 2002. The first respondent wasappointed as an EDDA / MC and his services were terminated on20.4.1999. He filed O.A. No. 1139 of 1999 and the CAT directed therespondents to dispose of his representation. As against the refusalto consider in favour of the first respondent, he moved the CAT withan O.A. The CAT held that there was no power of review by thesuperior officers and allowed the O.A. by its order dated 05.8.2002and directed the restoration of service of the first respondent.Aggrieved by the same, the Union of India has filed the present writpetition. 16.12.2. The stand taken by the CAT is in consonance with thereasoning rendered by the Supreme Court in Bikash Kuanar's case(cited supra). In the light of the same, there is no infirmity inthe order passed by the CAT and hence, this writ petition will standdismissed.16.13.W.P. No. 996 of 2004 (UOI v. V. Gajendran):-16.13.1. The Union of India has filed the present writ petitionagainst the order of the CAT dated 22.11.2001 made in O.A. No. 206 of2001. The first respondent was appointed as an EDBPM on a temporarybasis from 20.7.1999. He was regularly appointed in the said postw.e.f. 04.11.1999. In the guise of reviewing his appointment, ashow cause notice dated 27.11.2000 was issued to him.Subsequently, by an order dated 08.01.2001, his services wereterminated. The CAT, following the Full Bench of the CAT, held that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ there was no power of review and allowed the O.A and directed therestoration of service of the first respondent. Aggrieved by thesame, the Union of India has filed the present writ petition. 16.13.2. The stand taken by the CAT is fully in consonance withthe reasoning rendered by the Supreme Court in Bikash Kuanar's case(cited supra). In the light of the same, there is no infirmity inthe order passed by the CAT and hence, this writ petition will standdismissed.16.14. W.P. No. 22436 of 2004 (Marudhai v. UOI):-16.14.1. This writ petition has been filed against the order ofthe CAT dated 08.7.2004 made in O.A. No. 1026 of 2003. Thepetitioner's appointment was sought to be reviewed in the light ofthe 2003 amendment made in GDS Rules 2001. The CAT held that in thelight of the amendment to the Rules, there was nothing wrong in theshow cause notice dated 25.8.2003 which was admittedly given afterthe amendment to the GDS Rules. In that view of the matter, the O.A.was dismissed and hence, the present writ petition. 16.14.2. The writ petition is misconceived and devoid of merits.Accordingly, it will stand dismissed. 16.15.W.P. Nos. 27164 to 27166 of 2004 (UOI v. R.Jambugeswaran, S. Natarajan and N. Kamaraj respectively):-16.15.1. The first respondent in each of the writ petitions, whentheir appointment was sought to be reviewed by the superior officerin the light of the circular dated 13.11.1997, moved the CAT withthree Original Applications in O.A. Nos. 587, 589 and 588respectively. The O.As. were dealt with by a Full Bench of the CAT.The Full Bench, by an order dated 08.01.2004, held that there was nopower of review by the superior officers and allowed the O.As. andthat the circular was in direct contradiction with the judicialpronouncement of the CAT. 16.15.2. Though such an absolute view taken by the Full Bench maynot be in consonance with the observations made by the Supreme Courtin Bikash Kuanar's case (cited supra) especially in the light ofparagraph 12 of the said judgment (reproduced above), in the presentcase, no reason is given by the Union of India in reviewing theorders of appointments long after their appointments. Therefore, tosome extent, the view of the Full Bench requires modification in thelight of the judgment of the Supreme Court. Yet, since there are nomerits in the stand of the Union of India, all the writ petitions aredismissed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

16.16.W.P.No. 6318 of 2005 (UOI v. K.Dhanasekar):-16.16.1. The Union of India has filed the present writ petitionagainst the order of the CAT dated 23.12.2004 made in O.A. No. 430 of2004. The first respondent's appointment was sought to be reviewedafter a period of three years and his services were terminated by anorder dated 18.6.2003. The first respondent moved the CAT whichfound that there was no misrepresentation on his part and no reasonswere given for reviewing his appointment. It also followed theFull Bench judgment of the CAT in Jambukeswaran's case and allowedthe O.A. 16.16.2. The reasoning given by the CAT is fully in consonancewith the reasoning rendered by the Supreme Court in Bikash Kuanar'scase (cited supra). In the light of the same, there is noinfirmity in the order passed by the CAT and hence, this writpetition will stand dismissed.17.1. In the light of the above, the following writ petitions aredismissed:-1.W.P. No. 15073 of 20012.W.P. No. 20256 of 20013.W.P. No. 26407 of 20014.W.P. No. 414 of 20025.W.P. No. 13509 of 20026.W.P. No. 14051 of 20027.W.P. No. 1133 of 20038.W.P. No. 3705 of 20039.W.P. No. 6758 of 200310.W.P. No. 26935 of 200311.W.P. No. 996 of 200412.W.P. No. 27164 of 200413.W.P. No. 27165 of 200414.W.P. No. 27166 of 200415.W.P. No. 6318 of 200516.W.P. No. 22436 of 200417.2. The following writ petitions will stand allowed.1.W.P. No. 32314 of 20022.W.P. No. 17991 of 20033.W.P. No. 1800 of 20034.W.P. No. 12826 of 2003However, there will be no order as to costs. Connected MiscellaneousPetitions are closed. Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ griTo1. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices Tiruchirapalli Division Tiruchirappalli2. Sub-Divisional Inspector (Postal) Ariyalur Sub Division Ariyalur 3. The Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal Chennai – 1044. The Director of Postal Services, O/o. The Post Master General, Central Region, Trichy-620 001. Tamil Nadu.5. The Principal Post Master General, Tamil Nadu Circle, Madras-600 002.6. The Post Master General, North Region, Tamil Nadu Circle, Chennai-600 002.7. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Tirupattur Division, Tirupattur-635 601.8. The Sub Post Master, HSG II, SO, Vaniyambadi.9. The Branch Post Master, Edayakurichi Branch Office, Asaveerankudikadu Sub Office, Perambalur District.10.The Director of Postal Services, O/o the Post Master General, Central Region, Trichy-620 001. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

11.The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Vellore Division, Vellore.12.The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Tiruchi Division, Tirunelveli.13.The Sub Divisional Inspectors (Postal) Valliyoor Sub Division, Valliyooor-627 117.14.The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Tirunelveli Division, Tirunelveli-627 002.15.The Post Master General, Central Region, Tiruchirappalli-620 001.16.The Superintendent of Post Offices, Srirangam Division, Srirangam, Trichirappalli-621 010. 17. The Asst. Superintendent of Post Offices, Turaiyur East Sub Division, Tiruchirappalli - 621 010.18. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Pondicherry Division, Pondicherry - 605 001.19. The Asst. Superintendent of Post Offices, Villupuram Sub Division, Villupuram.20. The Direct General of Posts and Telegraphs, Sanchar Bhavan, New Delhi-121. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Kancheepuram Division, Kancheepuram - 631 501.22. The Asst. Superintendent of Posts, Sub Division, Arakkonam - 631 001. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

23. The Superintendent of Posts, Sub Division, Arakkonam - 631 001.24. The Director of Postal Services, O/o. the post Master General, Southern Region, Madurai.25. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Kovilpatti Division, Kovilpatti.26. The Post Master General, Western Region, Tamil Nadu, Coimbatore - 641 002.27. The Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Erode Division, Erode -638 001.28. The Sub Divisional Inspector (Postal) Bhavani Sub Division, Bhavani - 638 301.29. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Namakkal Division, Namakkal - 637 001.30. The Sub Post Master, Kumarapalayam - 638 185.2CC to Mr.S.Ramaswamy RajaRajan, Advocate -SR.27778,277793CC to Mr.K.M.Ramesh, Advocate -SR.28146,28147,281481CC to Mr.S.Arunkumar, Advocate -SR.282043CC to Mr.V.Bharathidasan, Advocate -SR.28263 to 282651CC to Mr.S.N.Ravichandran, Advocate -SR.283272CC to Mr.R.Singaravelan, Advocate -SR.28238, 282391CC to Mr.S.Mani, Advocate -SR.283681CC to Mr.S.Udayakumar, Sr.CGSC - SR.28281Pre-Delivery Common Order in W. P. No. 15073 of 2001, etc. batchCK(CO)SRA(11/07/2008)