JUDGMENT :

Harish Tandon, J.

1. Pursuant to the publication uploaded on the website of the Staff Selection Commission relating to Combined Graduate Level Examination, 2018 for filling up Group-B and Group-C posts in the various Ministries, Departments, and Organisations in the Government of India., the writ petitioners of the aforementioned writ petitions applied their candidature. The said publication would indicate that the examination would be conducted on four level i.e. computer-based examination/Tier-I, Tier-II, Tier- III (Descriptive) and Tier-IV (Skill Test). All the aforesaid writ petitioners were successful in the Combined Graduate Level Examination, 2018 and figured in the list of successful candidates published subsequently. The writ petitioners were recommended by the Commission for the appointment against the vacancies reported for Junior Accountant cadre available in the Postal Accounts Offices. Subsequently, an Office Order was issued on 28.5.2021 requesting all the successful candidates to furnish state wise preference in the enclosed pro-forma and it was clearly indicated therein that the allocation would be with reference to a rank obtained in the said examination vis-a-vis the preference given and vacancies available in the respective cadre. All the aforesaid writ petitioners furnished the State preference and opted for Kolkata, State West Bengal within the time stipulated therein. The writ petitioners felt aggrieved when the authorities have issued the appointment letter in Junior Accountant cadre in the Postal Department in other zone than Kolkata/West Bengal. According to the petitioner, two dossiers contained in the Office Order dated 9/10.8.2021 revealed that despite there being a clear vacancy under the Unreserved category in which the petitioners offered their candidatures, those have been filled up by the candidates belonging to OBC categories. Even apart, those OBC category candidates would not have been accommodated under the Unreserved category ranked much below the rank of the writ petitioners and, therefore, the authorities have compromised the merit and arbitrarily selected the candidates in a particular category which is impermissible in law.

2. After revelation of the aforesaid facts that the petitioner who stood higher in rank in the merit list have not been given appointment to a first preferred zone which should be on the basis of the merit; the less meritorious candidates belonging to the different categories have been appointed in the Unreserved category and the approach was made to Tribunal individually. All the writ petitioners herein had approached the Tribunal individually but their applications were taken up together by the Central Administrative Tribunal and were disposed of by a common order dated 14.9.2021 directing the writ petitioners to make representations, which shall be decided by the competent authority on the basis of the office memorandum dated 4.6.2010. The Tribunal further directed the writ petitioners to furnish their documents as called for vide Memo dated 28.5.2021 within a stipulated time.

3. Pursuant to the aforesaid liberty having granted, the representation was filed by the respective writ petitioners before the competent authority within the time indicated therein. By a Speaking Order dated 24.9.2021, the competent authority did not accept the grievance raised by the writ petitioners and disposed of the said representation as there is no illegality and/or arbitrariness in taking a decision in posting the writ petitioner at different zones than Kolkata, State of West Bengal. The Speaking Order would reveal that few OBC candidates from West Bengal who were selected in UR category subsequently submitted representations to be considered as OBC category candidate as per the subject Rules/guidelines of the DoPT OM dated 9.10.2007; Rule 38 of the Postal Manual Rules, Volume IV of the Department of Posts postulates that the order of transfer issued by the headquarters of