JUDGMENT :

MADHURESH PRASAD, J.

1. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 07.08.2015 passed by the learned CAT, Patna Bench in O.A. No. 797 of 2010, whereby and whereunder the appointment of the petitioner against the post of Garmin Dak Sevak Branch Postmaster at Sujatpur Branch Post Office in account with Choraut Sub Post Office under Sitamarhi Division, dated 11.10.2010, has been set aside and a direction has been issued to consider respondent no.-7 for appointment against the same post.

2. The O.A. No. 797 of 2010 was filed by the respondent no.-7 of the instant proceedings seeking quashing of the appointment of the instant petitioner who was respondent no.-7 in O.A No. 797 of 2010, to the post of Garmin Dak Sevak and consideration of his case for the appointment on the post.

3. In this judgment, this Court would be referring to the party position as obtaining in this case.

4. The brief factual background is that the post of Garmin Dak Sevak, Branch Postmaster at Sujatpur Branch Post Office (hereinafter referred to as ‘GDS BPM, Sujatpur’) was notified by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Sitamarhi under letter dated 06.05.2008. The last date for application was 04.06.2008. Respondent no.-7 applied for the said post. However, he could not appear for interview on the date fixed, i.e., 05.07.2009, as the interview letter was, according to him, deliberately delivered to him late. He represented against the delay in delivery of interview letter and was allowed to appear in the interview on 15.12.2009. He submitted all relevant documents and the same were verified.

5. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Sitamarhi Postal Division, directed the Sub Divisional Inspector of Post (SDI)(P) under letter dated 20.04.2010 to verify the certificates of the respondent no.-7 from the concerned school. The Headmaster of the concerned school authenticated the certificate as genuine under communication dated 22.04.2010. The Assistance Superintendent of Post Offices (HQ) also verified the register of the Bihar Sanskrit Siksha Board and found the certificate submitted by respondent no.-7 to be genuine.

6. In spite of verification of the various documents submitted by the respondent no.-7, the instant petitioner came to be appointed in a clandestine manner. Thereafter respondent no.-7 moved the learned CAT, Patna Bench. The authorities, before the learned CAT, Patna Bench, attempted to justify appointment of the petitioner by raising a doubt with respect to date of birth of the respondent no. 7. It has been stated before the Tribunal, that there was a difference of 10 years in the date of birth of the respondent no-7 in the two verification reports received through the Inspector of Posts and the Assistant Superintendent of Posts (HQ). On a purported difference of 10 years, in the date of birth of respondent no.-7 based on report dated 08.07.2010 issued by the ASP (HQ), merit list of 10 candidates was prepared. The candidates at serial nos. 1, 2, 4 and 6 were found fake. The respondent no.-7 was at serial no.-3. In respect of respondent no.-7 and another candidate whose name figured at serial no.-5, the authority had taken a stand that they were having two dates of birth and were thus not considered for appointment. In this way, authorities have excluded all the candidates from serial nos.-1 to 6. Candidate at serial no.-7, that is, the instant petitioner thus came to be appointed on the post.

7. To clarify the issue regarding the date of birth, respondent no.-7 submitted;

(i) report of ASP (HQ) dated 08.07.2010,

(ii) report of Headmaster of the school from where he had passed the examination which was dated 03.07.2010, and

(iii) the certificate dated 04.05.2011 issued by the Bihar Sanskrit Siksha Board.

From the said documents, it is apparent that the date of birth of respondent no.-7 was 28.02.1976. Therefore, there was no basis for contending or concluding that there was any other date of birth of the respondent no.-7, much less 28.02.1986.

8. Being