Judgment 1. This petition is on certiorari action that the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, dated 12.5.1999 in Registration case No. A.O. 370 of 1994 : Dinanath Singh vs. Union of India & Ors., is illegal, suffers from a manifest error and an error apparent on the face of the record. 2. The issue relates to one Dinanath Singh making a petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal, to the effect, that he had received an appointment as an extra departmental delivery agent at Lilwachh Block Office by Sub-divisional Inspector of Post Offices, Central Subdivision, Sasaram on 6.6.1991 and in fact he had joined the post on 15.6.1991. He laid a grievance that his services were terminated by the same Sub-divisional Inspector by order of 1.9.1993 after he had worked on the post for more than two years. 3. He explained the circumstances that the previous incumbent had died in January 1991. On the vacancy which had been caused on the death of the previous incumbent, the post apparently had been kept reserved to be filled up by Ravi Shankar Ram who was none else than the son of Banshi Lal Ram the incumbent who died in service. One fact needs to be noticed. At the time when the previous incumbent had died in 1991, respondent no. 7, Ravi Shankar Ram was 17 years old. His date of birth is 1974. 4. No matter, how he may have engineered the situation, Ravi Shankar Ram obtained an employment as an extra departmental delivery agent on compassionate grounds under the principles of rules of harness in Government service. While Ravi Shankar Ram was being accommodated, the substantive incumbent on the post Dinanath Singh was edged out. The termination of the employment of Dinanath Singh and appointment of Ravi Shankar Prasad were simultaneous. The Tribunal took notice of these circumstances and came to the conclusion that the termination of the services of Dinanath Singh was illegal as what he received was a nptice of termination of his services and not a notice as to why his services ought not be terminated. 5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner and is of the opinion that the Tribunal has committed no error in allowing the petition of Dinanath Singh. 5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner and is of the opinion that the Tribunal has committed no error in allowing the petition of Dinanath Singh. In fact, if there be an error, it was when the appointment was given to Ravi Shankar Ram, the petitioner appellant. 6. The post of an extra departmental postal agent or for the matter an extra departmental delivery agent needs to be understood. Many years ago the Supreme Court delivered a decision to the effect that the village Post Master working as an extra departmental postal agent, the post partakes the nature of a civil post within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution. AIR 1977 SC 1677 : Superintendent of Post Offices vs. P. K. Rajamma. If Article 311 is to apply then it will apply to the services of Dinanath Singh first. The latter had already been working as an extra departmental delivery agent. Ravi Shankar Ram came through the back door. He was not even qualified to hold the post on the date when his father died as he was under age. In the circumstances, neither equity nor law is in favour of Ravi Shankar Ram, the petitioner-appellant. 7. These are totalities of the situation. This Court is satisfied that the Central Administrative Tribunal has committed no error, manifest or apparent, that this Court should certify the decision as incorrect. 8. This petition is dismissed.