The main legal principle established in the judgment is that the pendency of a criminal case should not hinder appointment to a government post, as per the Santosh Kumar Jha case.

Narayan Roy, J.

1. Heard Mr. Umesh Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the contesting opposite party and learned counsel for the Union of India.

2. By this application the petitioner seeks review of order dated 27.6.2002 passed by a Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 7926 of 2000, whereby and whereunder it was observed that the writ petitioner, Chandra Kishore Thakur, will be entitled to seek a review of the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (hereinafter to be referred to as "CAT), but, at the same time, quashed the departmental order dated 21.2.2002, by which services of the writ petitioner Chandra Kishore Thakur was terminated.

3. Short facts giving rise to this writ application are as under:-

The petitioner and opposite party no. 5 alongwith others were the applicants for selection on the post of Extra Departmental Branch Post Master (hereinafter to be referred to "EDBPM"), Raghopur within the District of Samastipur Postal Division. Names of the petitioner and opposite party no. 5 were sponsored by the Employment Exchange and, accordingly, their cases were considered for the post aforesaid and during selection process opposite party no. 5 was selected to the post aforesaid and vide order dated 23rd April, 1993 appointment letter was issued and he joined the post.

4 Appointment of opposite party no. 5, however, was challenged before the CAT in O.A. No. 155 of 1996. The matter was contested before the CAT, where the official respondents in order to justify their stand raised a solitary objection to the effect that the petitioner (Surendra Kumar Chaudhary) since was involved in a criminal case pertaining to Mansoorchak Police Station Case No. 35 of 1992, he was not found eligible for the post.

5. The CAT, however, allowed the application filed by the present petitioner holding that mere involvement in a criminal case would not be a ground for denial of appointment and since the present petitioner had edge over opposite party no. 5 (Chandra Kishore Thakur), so far the marks obtained by him was concerned, he had a preferential right for appointment over opposite party no. 5 and issued direction to the authorities concerned to issue an appropriate order after ascertaining antecedents of the petitioner and till passing of the appropriate order appointment of opposite party no. 5 (Chandra Kishore Thakur) would be deemed to be provisional.

6. In the meantime, the postal authorities terminated appointment of Chandra Kishore Thakur (opposite party no. 5) with immediate effect vide order dated 21.2.2001 pursuant to observation and direction of the CAT passed in O.A. No. 155 of 1996.

7. The order passed by the CAT, however, was challenged before this Court by Chandra Kishore Thakur in C.W.J.C. No. 7926 of 2000, which, ultimately, was disposed of by the order impugnedof which review has been sought for.

8. Mr. Umesh Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that in the writ application filed by opposite party no. 5 Chandra Kishore Thakur order passed by the CAT dated 26.7.2000 was challenged, but, at no point of time, had challenged order dated 21.2.2001 passed by the postal authorities terminating the services of Chandra Kishore Thakur and this Court while disposing of the writ application observed that in case the petitioner has any grievance against the order of the CAT to the extent that Surendra Kumar Chaudhary was an accused in a criminal case, the writ petitioner would be entitled to seek a review of the decision of the CAT, but, at the same time, quashed order dated 21.2.2001, passed by the postal authorities terminating the services of the writ petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that since this Court had directed the writ petitioner to file a review before the CAT, latter part of the order was unwarranted and uncalled for. It is further submitted that the CAT after noticing the fact that the revi