JUDGMENT B. PANIGRAHI, J. — This writ petition has challenged the legality, propriety and validity of the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in Origi¬nal Application No.606 of 1998 dated 6.8.1999 whereby and where¬under the petitioner’s appointment to the post of Extra Depart¬mental Sub-Post Master (hereinafter referred to as EDSPM), Ratna¬giri was set aside and the departmental authorities were directed to consider the case of other seven candidates wherein the candi¬dature of O.P. No.4 was also considered. 2. The factual matrix of this case lies within narrow compass : A vacancy in the post of EDSPM, Ratnagiri occurred on 9.1.1998. Therefore, on 18.9.1997, the departmental authorities sent a requisition to the local Employment Exchange for sponsoring names of suitable candidates, after examining their eligibility crite¬ria. Accordingly, the local Employment Exchange sponsored the names of 40 candidate on 23.9.1997. The Superintendent of Post Offices examined the eligibility criteria of different candidates sponsored by the local Employment Exchange and found seven candi¬dates out of them to be eligible for the post of EDSPM. On fur¬ther consideration of merits, it was found only the petitioner to be suitable for the aforesaid post. Accordingly, he was provi¬sionally selected with the condition to provide a suitable accom¬odation for the purposes of running a post office vide Annexure-3 dt. 15.10.98. The petitioner was thereafter directed for attend¬ing training programme vide Annexure-4 dt. 6.1.99 and vide order dated 15.1.99 (Annexure-5) he was appointed as EDSPM of Ratnagiri Post Office by the departmental authority. But however, before such appointment, the O.P. No.4 already filed an original appli¬cation before the Administrative Tribunal challenging the selec¬tion of the writ petitioner. During the pendency of the original application, it seems that the petitioner, who was O.P. No.4 before the Tribunal was appointed in the post of EDSPM. But his appointment was held subject to the result of the original appli¬cation filed by O.P. No.4 before the C.A.T. The learned Tribunal declared the appointment of the petitioner as an illegal on the ground that the Department did not resort to invite applica¬tions from the open market and/or from common pool by which the O.P. No.4 before the Tribunal, as well as many others were pre¬vented from submitting their applications. Therefore, the learned Tribunal directed the O.Ps 1 to 3 to invite application by open advertisement and then fill up the post of EDSPM. 3. Therefore, the learned Tribunal directed the O.Ps 1 to 3 to invite application by open advertisement and then fill up the post of EDSPM. 3. It is submitted by the petitioner that after it was advertised, the petitioner had neither applied nor appeared in the interview. According to the petitioner, it was unnecessary for O.Ps 1 to 3 to undertake the process of selection once again after the petitioner was validly selected and appointed. The learned Tribunal while rejecting the petitioner’s appointment has erroneously relied upon the judgment of Excise Superintendent Malkapatnama, Krishna District. A.P. v. K.V.N. Visweswara Rao and others, 1996 (6) SCC 216 . It is unfortunate to note that the Tribunal had failed to take note of the subsequent judgment of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1998 SC 331, in the case of Arun Tewari and others v. Zila Mansavi Shikshak Sangh and others. In the latter case the Supreme Court has explained the previous judgment as to under what circumstances the candidates from the open market can be invited. It has been held as follows :- “The next contention relates to inviting applications from Employment Exchanges instead of by advertisement. This procedure has been resorted to looking to the requirements of a time-bound scheme. The original applicants contended that if the posts had been advertised, many others like them could have applied. The original applicants who so complain, however, do not possess the requisite qualifications for the post. As far as we can see from the record, nobody who had the requisite qualifications for the post. As far as we can see from the record, nobody who had the requisite qualifications has complained that he was prevented from applying because advertise¬ment was not issued. What is more important, in the special circumstances requiring a speedier process of selection and appointment applications were invited through Employment Ex¬changes for 1993 only. In this context, the special procedure adopted is not unfair. The State has relied upon the case of Union of India V. N. Hargopal, (1987) 3 SCC 308 : ( AIR 1987 SC 1227 ), where Government instruction enjoining that the field of choice should, in the first instance, be restricted to candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchanges, was upheld as not offend¬ing Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The State has relied upon the case of Union of India V. N. Hargopal, (1987) 3 SCC 308 : ( AIR 1987 SC 1227 ), where Government instruction enjoining that the field of choice should, in the first instance, be restricted to candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchanges, was upheld as not offend¬ing Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In the case of Delhi Development Horticulture Employees’ Union V. Delhi Administra¬tion, Delhi, (1992) 4 SCC 99 at page 111 : (1992 AIR SCW 616), this Court approved of recruitment through Employment Exchanges as a method of preventing malpractices. But in the subsequent and more recent case of Excise Superintendent, Malkapatnam, Krishna District, A.P. V. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao, (1996) 6 SCC 216 : (1996 AIR SCW 3979), this Court has distinguished the case in Union of India v. Hargopal, AIR 1987 SC 1227 (supra) on the basis of special facts of that case. It has been observed that the better course for the state would be to invite applications from Employment Exchanges as well as to advertise and also give wide publicity through T.V. Radio etc. The Court had to consider whether persons who had applied directly and not through Employ¬ment Exchange would be considered. This Court upheld their claim for consideration.” 4. The procedure has never been challenged by the O.P. No.4 as unfair nor there has been any allegation of mala fide attributed against O.Ps 1 to 3. Therefore, as per the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1987 SC 1227 (Union of India and others v. H. Hargopal and others), there cannot be any in¬flexible or rigid law on this point as because, only the candi¬dates who have been sponsored by the Employment Exchange shall be allowed to participate without inviting application from the general public. The Department can also resort to invite applica¬tions from the open market, if the number of candidates sponsored by Employment Exchange are less or if there is any chance of getting better candidates by inviting applications from the general public. In this case, department has set out the follow¬ing guide lines for filling up the post of EDSPM : “In the context of selection of candidates to work as EDAS, the issue relating to notification of the vacancies to the local Employment Exchange has been further examined in the light of O.M. No.14024/2/96-Estt. (D) dt. In this case, department has set out the follow¬ing guide lines for filling up the post of EDSPM : “In the context of selection of candidates to work as EDAS, the issue relating to notification of the vacancies to the local Employment Exchange has been further examined in the light of O.M. No.14024/2/96-Estt. (D) dt. 18.5.1998 of the Ministry of Personal, Public Grievances and Pensions (Dop & T). It has now been decided that in respect of all vacancies, of EDAS, excluding those were the process of recruitment through Employment Ex¬change/open advertisement has already commenced, in addition to notifying through the Employment Exchange, the vacancies shall be simultaneously notified through public advertisement and the candidates nominated by the Employment Exchange as also those responding to the open advertisement will be considered. In case the notification and public advertisement so issued fail to elicit any response within the stipulated date or if the effec¬tive number of candidates responding is less than 3, the vacancies will be re-notified to the Employment Exchange and advertised calling for nominations, etc, within 15 days and all the candi¬dates offering their candidature will be considered in accordance with the instructions issued by this officer from time to time. Since the posts of ED Agents falling vacant are isolated and scattered and publication of the same through newspapers is considered cost prohibitive, the existing method of giving wide publicity by way of public advertisement in this behalf will continue to be followed.” 5. It has been stated that the guidelines fixed by the department should have been followed with immediate effect which was published on 19th August, 1998. In the instruction, it was amply clarified that this rule will be applicable where the process of recruitment through Employment Exchange/open adver¬tisement has not already commenced. Therefore, it is to be gath¬ered whether the selection process of EDSPM has already started by the time of this amended notification was issued. It has been already discussed that the Department has invited applications from the Employment Exchange ever since 18.9.1997 for the antici¬pated vacancy which would occur w.e.f. 9.1.1998. Pursuant to the said letter by the department, name of 40 candidates were spon¬sored by the Employment Exchange. Thus the amended notification so far as the selection of the petitioner as EDSPM is concerned, has no application. 6. Pursuant to the said letter by the department, name of 40 candidates were spon¬sored by the Employment Exchange. Thus the amended notification so far as the selection of the petitioner as EDSPM is concerned, has no application. 6. The learned Tribunal has taken another point into consideration that at one stage only the Department asked the local Employment Exchange to sponsor candidates whereas at a subsequent stage the application from open pool were invited. But the Superintendent of Post Offices again realized the mistake subsequently on the ground that since the selection process has already commenced by inviting application from the local Employ¬ment Exchange, there was no further necessity to invite applica¬tions from general public. In our considered view, the action of the department was legal and perfectly justified. It has appeared that the department has also submitted a supplementary affidavit in this Court where they have amply explained why they confined themselves to the candidates sponsored by the Employment Ex¬change. A question shall arise as to whether the candidates who were sponsored by the Employment Exchange will only be eligible to be considered for the said post or the Department can simulta¬neously consider the case of other candidates by making open advertisement. If the Recruitment Rule does not specify to invite applications only from the local Employment Exchange, then the department can invite applications from the open market by making an advertisement in any local Newspaper or by widely notifying it. If there is no challenge made against the department on account of mala fide, merely because, the department had confined to select the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange, such selection cannot, however, be said to be illegal. In this regard, we rely upon a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1987 SC 1227 in the case of Union of India and others v. Hargopal and others wherein it has been held as follows : “It is clear that it is the desire of the Government of India that all the Government departments, Government Organiza¬tion and statutory bodies should adhere to the rule that not merely vacancies should be notified to the Employment Exchange, but the vacancies should also be filled by candidates sponsored by the employment exchanges. It was only when no suitable recruitment were to be considered. It was only when no suitable recruitment were to be considered. While the Government is at perfect liberty to issue instructions to its own departments and organizations provided the instruc¬tions do not contravene any Constitutional provisions or any statute, these instructions cannot bind other bodies which are created by Statute. In the absence of any statutory prescription, the statuto¬ry authority may however, adopt and follow such instructions if it thinks fit. Otherwise, the Government may not compel statutory bodies to make appointments of persons from among candidates sponsored by employment exchange only. The question, of course does not arise in the case of private employees which cannot be so compelled by any instructions issued by the Government”. 7. Therefore, in the light of the principles enunciated above, in our considered opinion, it cannot be said that the selection from the list of the candidates sponsored by the local employment being violated under Articles 14 or 16 of the Consti¬tution of India, therefore, should be declared “illegal”. 8. Considering the case of both the parties from every angle, we are unable to sustain the order passed by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the Tribunal’s order dated 6.8.99 passed in O.A No. 606 of 1998 is set aside and the appointment of the petitioner in the post of EDSPM in Ratnagiri Sub-Post Office is confirmed. This will take effect from the date of his joining. We hope and trust that the O.Ps 1 to 3 will issue appointment order within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. B. P. DAS, J. I agree Petition allowed.