Judgment 1. The controversy in the case relates to appointment as Extra Departmental Branch Postmaster for Murgawan Extra Department Branch Office. 2. Initially, the postal department made a requisition to the employment exchange asking for suitable names for appointment to the aforesaid post and indicating that preference would be given to candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and other backward castes. In response to the requisition the employment exchange sponsored a few names, which did not include the name of the present petitioner. The candidates whose names were sponsored by the employment exchange were asked to submit the necessary documents so as to be called for interview. The necessary documents and certificates from three candidates were received in time. All of them belonged to the unreserved category. It further transpired that though some candidates belonging to the preferential categories had sent their certificates and documents through post, those could not be received in time due to a postal strike taking place at that time. 3. In those circumstances, the postal authorities decided not to proceed further on the basis of the earlier requisition and took the decision to issue a public advertisement for making appointment to the post. A public advertisement was accordingly issued and the writ petitioner was among those who applied in response to it. 4. At that stage two candidates whose names were earlier sponsored by the employment exchange went to the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. nos. 505 & 558 of 1998 challenging the action of the postal authorities in issuing a fresh advertisement and questioning their decision not to proceed further on the basis of the earlier requisition made to the employment exchange. While their applications were pending the departmental authorities proceeded on the basis of the public advertisement; they first selected the present petitioner for appointment and allowed her to join the post on 30 July 1998 but later terminated her service by order, dated 22.1.1999. This led the petitioner too to approach the Tribunal in O.A. no. 70 of 1999. 5. All the three applications before the tribunal were heard together and were disposed of by a common judgment and order, dated 5.10.2000. 6. This writ petition has been filed by petitioner Kumari Rekha challenging the aforesaid judgment and order dismissing her O.A. no. 70 of 1999. 7. 70 of 1999. 5. All the three applications before the tribunal were heard together and were disposed of by a common judgment and order, dated 5.10.2000. 6. This writ petition has been filed by petitioner Kumari Rekha challenging the aforesaid judgment and order dismissing her O.A. no. 70 of 1999. 7. So far as the other two original applications were concerned the Tribunal found and that there was no infirmity in the departmental authorities taking the decision not to proceed further on the basis of the earlier requisition made to the employment exchange and to issue a fresh advertisement and that was the end of their challenge to the fresh selection process. 8. So far as the present petitioner is concerned, she, admittedly, belongs to the unreserved category. It also appears that though some applications were received from candidates belonging to the preferential categories, none of them were found fulfilling the other conditions for appointment. 9. Justifying its action in terminating the petitioners appointment the departmental authorities pointed out before the Tribunal a serious mistake in the date as mentioned in the employment notice. From a photostat copy of the employment notice, which is at Annexure 4 to the writ petition, it appears that though the employment notice was shown to have been issued on 30 August 1998, the last date for submission of applications was indicated as 13 August 1998. It is not clear from the tribunals order as to when, in fact, the employment notice was issued but the tribunal has agreed with the departmental authorities in holding that the mistake of dates was sufficient to cause confusion and to mislead the prospective candidates in filling applications in response to it. The tribunal has, accordingly, upheld the decision of the departmental authorities to re-advertise the post and to initiate a fresh selection process for appointment to the post. 10. Having heard Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, senior counsel for the petitioner, and having gone through the order of the Tribunal, we are satisfied that the view taken by the tribunal is not so unreasonable or arbitrary as to warrant an interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. 11. However, before closing this matter we would like to dispel a mis-apprehension in the mind of the petitioner. Mr. Ganesh Pd. 11. However, before closing this matter we would like to dispel a mis-apprehension in the mind of the petitioner. Mr. Ganesh Pd. Singh submitted that the tribunal has proceeded on the basis that the post in question was reserved for candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and other backward castes; the petitioner was neither, and this would preclude the petitioner from applying, if an advertisement was issued infuture. 12. In our view, such an apprehension is unfounded as there is no indication in the employment notice that the post was reserved for candidates belonging to Schedule Castes/Scheduled Tribes and other backward castes. It is only stated in the advertisement notice that preference would be given to candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes or other backward castes. In case, an advertisement is issued in future it will be open to the petitioner to submit her application, which will be duly considered alongwith other eligible candidates, according to law. 13. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observations.