Manojit Bhuyan, J.

This writ petition is directed against the order dated 30.09.2014 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench in OA No. 61 of 2013. The petitioner herein had approached the Tribunal, impelled by the following facts. On 21.09.2010 he was provisionally selected for the post of Branch Post Master (GDS), Patherkandi Anchalik Branch Post Office. Two conditions prescribed were (i) he must reside in the post village within a period of 30 (thirty) days from the date of selection, and (ii) must provide accommodation for the Branch Post Office. On 04.10.2010 the Officiating Branch Post Master (GDS) of the said Patherkandi Branch Office was directed to hand over the charge to the petitioner. Thereafter, on 10.12.2010 the petitioner assumed charge through the official process of handing over/taking over and started discharging his duties.

2. On 30.07.2012 the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Cachar Division, Silchar issued Notice of termination of service under Rule 8 (2) of the Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011 (in short, "the Rules of 2011"). Rule 8 of the Rules pertains to termination of engagement of a Sevak who has not already rendered more than 3 (three) years continuous service from the date of engagement at any time by a notice in writing at the instance of either the Sevak to the Recruiting Authority or vice versa. The period of the notice is to be one month, hedged with the proviso that such service may be terminated forthwith and on such termination, the Sevak will be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his basic allowance plus dearness allowance for the period of notice at the same rates at which he was drawing them immediately before the termination of his service, or, as the case may be for the period by which such notice falls short of one month.

3. The petitioner made representation on 04.08.2012 stating that the notice of termination was bad in the absence of any reasons being assigned, without there being any prior show-cause notice, without any enquiry being held and/or affording opportunity of hearing. No response was received, which constrained the petitioner to file the first application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench i.e. OA No. 242/2012. The said OA was disposed of on 10.08.2012 directing the petitioner to file a comprehensive representation before the Chief Post Master General, Assam Circle within fifteen days and, in turn, the said authority was directed to pass a reasoned order within two months from the date of receipt of such representation by affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Until disposal of the representation, the Notice of termination dated 30.07.2012 was directed to be kept in abeyance. Liberty was also granted to the petitioner to approach the Tribunal if he is affected by the order of the authority concerned. On 10.08.2012 itself an Office Order was issued allowing the petitioner to resume his duties.

4. The petitioner submitted a comprehensive representation before the Chief Post Master General, Assam Circle on 17.08.2002, on which the impugned Speaking Order dated 16.01.2013 was passed. The said order held that the petitioner had secured only 40.2% in the HSLC examination and there were many candidates who secured higher percentage of marks, which came to notice on receipt of a complaint. It was held that the selection of the petitioner was against the procedure prescribed in para 5 of the Recruitment Notice dated 05.08.2010 wherein it was mentioned that selection would be made on the basis of percentage of marks obtained in HSLC examination, subject to fulfillment of other conditions as laid down in the aforesaid Rules of 2011. As such, the Chief Post Master General, Assam Circle held that the selection of the petitioner was not in accordance with merit evaluation and, therefore, irregular. It was also found that the petitioner not having rendered more than thre