JUDGMENT : N. Prusty, J. - Thirteen Petitioners, who were said to be working as Casual Labourers under opposite party No. 4/Head Record Officer,. R.M.S. (N) Division, Cuttack, have filed this writ petition challenging order dated 08.06.1998 passed by the Senior Superintendent, R.M.S. (N) Division, Cuttack/opposite party No. 3 (Annexure-4) and order dated 10.12.1998 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") passed in O.A. No. 300 of 1998 (Annexure-5), with a prayer to quash both the above orders under Annexure 4 and 5. 2. It has been averred by the Petitioners in this writ petition that they were working as Casual Labourers under Head Record Officer, RMS (N) Division, Cuttack/opposite party No. 4 for about fifteen years continuously. They had earlier filed Original Application Nos. 53, 60, 61 and 69 of 1992 before the learned Tribunal for regularization of their services against the vacant posts of E.D. Mail Man (hereinafter referred to as "EDMM"). All the above Original applications were disposed of by a common order dated 07.03.1997 with a direction to the concerned authority "to consider the suitability of the applicants for regularization in the post of E.D.M.M in accordance with the Rules subject to giving them relaxation of age, if necessary to the extent of the service rendered by them in the Department previously against the vacant posts which they proposed to fill up on regular basis". After order dated 07.03.1997 was passed by the learned Tribunal, the authority concerned invited applications to fill up the posts of EDMM. The Petitioners also applied for their engagement as EDMM along with other applicants in response to the said advertisement. After the selection process was over, opposite party No. 4 issued appointment letters in favour of the present Petitioners. The Petitioners joined their posts on 21st and 22nd of November 1997 and thereafter they discharged their duties as against those posts. In the meantime, the Chief Post Master General, Bhubaneswar j opposite party No. 2 received certain allegations with regard to some irregularities, omissions and commissions committed by opposite party No. 4 in the process of selection and accordingly directed opposite party No. 3/Senior Superintendent, RMS (N) Division, Cuttack to enquire into the matter with regard to the irregularities committed by opposite party No. 4 and pass appropriate order in the matter in accordance with letter dated 13.11.1997 of the Department of Posts. Pursuant to the above direction, opposite party No. 3 enquired into the matter and passed order dated 08.06.1998 (Annexure-4) declaring the selection of the Petitioners as null and void. 3. Challenging the order-dated 08.06.1998 (Annexure-4) passed by opposite party No. 3, the Petitioners had approached the Tribunal in O.A. No. 300 of 1998. The said Original Application was disposed of vide order dated 10.12.1998 with a direction to the concerned authority to redo the selection afresh as per Rules, with the following observation:- XXX XXX the Departmental Authorities have every right to cancel the process of selection. After all, in the impugned order itself, Respondent No. 3 has directed Respondent No. 4 to re-do the selection and in the process of fresh selection cases of the present applicants will be considered strictly in accordance with Recruitment Rules. In view of this, we find No. merit in this Original Application and we reject the same but without any order as to costs" and accordingly ordered that " before taking up fresh selection, Respondents should give a fresh opportunity to all the 73 candidates to submit complete documents. The impugned order also provides that after the fresh selection is made and before issue of appointment order, the file has to be submitted by Respondent No. 4 to Respondent No. 3. This is also a well-come step and should be followed strictly. 4. Being aggrieved by the above order dated 10.12.1998, the applicants in the O.A. have filed the present writ petition. 5. Opposite party Nos. l to 4 filed their counter affidavit, inter alia, stating therein that the Petitioners were neither casual labourers nor worked continuously for fifteen years. However, they had worked as substitutes against the leave vacancy of regular EDMM, who arranged their own substitutes while going on leave as per the Department Rules. Besides, the Petitioners have also worked as Majdoors against the clear vacancies for shorter period pending recruitment. Pursuant to order-dated 07.03.1997 -(Annexure-I) of the Central Administrative Tribunal passed in earlier Original applications, i.e. O.A. Nos. 53, 60, 61 and 69 of 1992, advertisement was issued for filling up thirteen vacant posts of EDMM. In response to the said advertisement, 50 candidates from outside and 23 candidates out of 25 applicants in earlier Original Applications submitted their applications in time. 53, 60, 61 and 69 of 1992, advertisement was issued for filling up thirteen vacant posts of EDMM. In response to the said advertisement, 50 candidates from outside and 23 candidates out of 25 applicants in earlier Original Applications submitted their applications in time. Opposite party No. 4 selected thirteen candidates out of those applicants and issued appointment order in their favour vide letter-dated 19.11.1997. Four unsuccessful candidates filed O.A. Nos. 703 of 1997 and 725 of 1997 with a prayer for their appointment as EDMM. In course of preparing the counter for the above Original Applications, opposite party No. 3 examined the recruitment file and noticed serious irregularities. It came to the notice of opposite party No. 3 that in the process of selection two separate standards were maintained, i.e. one for the applicants who had filed cases before the Tribunal and the other for outsiders and finally it was found that there were serious irregularities, omission and commissions in the process of selection. Accordingly opposite party No. 3 passed order dated 08.06.1998 (Annexure-4) declaring appointment of the Petitioners as null and void. Challenging the above said order dated 08.06.1998, the Petitioners had filed O.A. No. 300 of 1998 and the said Original Application was disposed of vide impugned order dated 10.12.1998 (Annexure-5) with a direction to re-do the selection afresh as per the Rules taking into the cases of all 73 candidates, for selection of deserving candidates. The Opposite party No. 3 is the Reviewing Authority and higher in status to opposite party No. 4 vide DG Post New Delhi Circular No. 19-23/97/ED/TRG dated 13.11.1997 in para-3 (iii) circulated/conveyed vide Chief Post Master General (CPMG), Orissa letter No. ST/10-1/65-PT-IV/Rlg/8/95-96 dated 09.12.1997 and competent enough to review the case of selection. Accordingly, opposite party No. 3 reviewed the process of selection and declared the same to be null and void. As such, since opposite party No. 3 has every right to review any irregular case of his subordinate officers as per the Department Rules in force as and when required, his action in declaring the selection as null and void, cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary. It has also been averred by opposite party Nos. As such, since opposite party No. 3 has every right to review any irregular case of his subordinate officers as per the Department Rules in force as and when required, his action in declaring the selection as null and void, cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary. It has also been averred by opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 in their counter affidavit that opposite party No. 3 had been directed by opposite party No. 2 to take suitable disciplinary action against opposite party No. 4 for his irregular process of selection. Since vide order dated 14.12.1998 passed in Misc.Case No. 16064 of 1998 this Court had directed that "process of fresh selection may continue, but all the Petitioners, if they are continuing in their post, shall be allowed to continue until further orders. If the process of selection has been completed, the result shall not be published without leave of the Court," even though the process of selection has already been concluded pursuant to the above order, the result has not been published. 6. Heard Mr. Bibhudhendra Mishra, learned Senior Advocate leading Mr. S.Das, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. J.K.Mishra, learned Assistant Solicitor General for opposite party Nos. 1 to 4, Mr. N.C.Pati, learned Counsel for opposite party Nos. 6 and 7 and Mr. B.M.Patnaik, learned Counsel for opposite party No. 8. 7. Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate submitted that the Petitioners were working as Casual Labourers under the direct control of Head Record Officer, R.M.S. (N) Division, Cuttack/ opposite party No. 4 for more than 15 years. As such, they ought to have been regularized against the vacant posts of EDMM in compliance of the order-dated 07.03.1997 passed in O.A. Nos. 53, 60, 61 and 69 of 1992 keeping in view the period of service rendered by them. Instead of regularizing them against the vacant posts, an advertisement was issued calling applications for engagement of EDMM. The Petitioners had applied for the said post and were selected. Appointment orders were also issued in their favour. 53, 60, 61 and 69 of 1992 keeping in view the period of service rendered by them. Instead of regularizing them against the vacant posts, an advertisement was issued calling applications for engagement of EDMM. The Petitioners had applied for the said post and were selected. Appointment orders were also issued in their favour. Since the Petitioners were selected through a proper selection process, their services should not have been terminated in compliance of order-dated 08.06.1998 (Annexure-4) passed by the Senior Superintendent, R.M.S. (N) Division, Cuttack, as because the said order (Annexure-4) was passed without giving at least a show cause notice and/ or reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners, opposite party No. 3 had No. power to review the selection process conducted by opposite party No. 4 after the selected candidates joined the post and as such order dated 08.06.1998 (Annexure-4) passed by opposite party No. 3 was in clear violation of the conditions stipulated in the Circular on the basis of which the said order was passed. Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate further submitted that since vide order dated 10.12.1998 passed in O.A. No. 300 of 1998, learned Tribunal rejected the prayer of the Petitioners on merit and dismissed the O.A. with certain observations, the same is completely unjust, illegal, arbitrary, bad in the eye of law and as such is liable to be set aside. 8. Mr. J.K.Misra, learned Assistant Solicitor General submitted that opposite party No. 3 while enquiring into the matter reviewed the selection file of EDMM, HRO, RMS (N) Division, Cuttack and found that serious irregularities had been committed during the process of selection and accordingly prepared office note dated 05.06.1998 (Annexure-1 to the counter affidavit). A bare perusal of the office note dated 05.06.1998 clearly indicates the irregularities which had been committed by opposite party No. 4 in respect of certain individual candidates in accepting their applications/certificates and in rejecting the applications/certificates of some other candidates, who stand in the same footing. A bare perusal of the office note dated 05.06.1998 clearly indicates the irregularities which had been committed by opposite party No. 4 in respect of certain individual candidates in accepting their applications/certificates and in rejecting the applications/certificates of some other candidates, who stand in the same footing. Some of the applications were rejected on the ground that the documents enclosed were not attested by an officer of the gazetted rank and issued/attested by the Headmaster of the respective Schools, where the candidates were prosecuting their studies, even though the Headmasters of those Schools are the Gazetted Officers, when the opposite party No. 3 was examining the applications/documents of individual applicant, it has been found that the candidatures of Upendra Kumar Sahu and Biswaranjan Singh have been rejected on the ground that the certificates issued in their favour have been attested by the Headmaster of the respective Schools, where they were prosecuting, as they are not gazetted officers even though actually both the Headmasters were Gazetted Officers. One Dhirendra Kumar Sill having educational qualification of Class-IX and not a Matriculate, did not furnish OBC certificate but produced the certificate belonging to socially and economically backward class along with his application and he was selected as OBC candidate, but one Gokulananda Prusty, who is a matriculate and furnished OBC certificate, was not selected as against OBC vacancy. Irregularities have also been committed in the cases of Bhagirathi Pati, Nityananda Sahoo, Sudarsan Mallik, Niranjan Behera, Sesadhar Dehury, Ramesh Chandra Nayak, Mahendra Kumar Sahoo, Sanatan Sahoo, Dibakar Sahoo, Deepak Kumar Patra, Tahali Charan Mallik, Manoj Kumar Nayak, Biyatkesh Tripathy and Ors. as stated in detail in the said Office note. Keeping in view all the irregularities which have been committed by opposite party No. 4 in selecting the present Petitioners, it has been observed by opposite party No. 3 that undue facilities have been extended in favour of the applicants in the earlier Original Applications and the selection process was finalized accordingly. The same standard has not been adopted in the case of other 50 candidates who were not parties to the earlier original applications, but applied for the post. Taking into account all the irregularities, omission and commissions involved in the selection process, the whole selection process was declared as null and void by opposite party No. 3. While disposing of O.A. Nos. Taking into account all the irregularities, omission and commissions involved in the selection process, the whole selection process was declared as null and void by opposite party No. 3. While disposing of O.A. Nos. 53, 60, 61 and 69 of 1992, learned Tribunal has never directed the departmental authority to give preference to the applicants in those original applications over and above other applicants. Rather in the above original applications the learned Tribunal has only directed the departmental authority to consider the suitability of the applicants for regularization in the posts of EDMM in accordance with the Rules, subject to giving them relaxation of age, if necessary to the extent of the service rendered by them in the department previously, against the vacant posts which they propose to fill up on regular basis. As such, nowhere the Tribunal has given direction to give special preference to the Petitioners, as had been done by opposite party No. 4 intentionally in selecting and issuing appointment orders in their favour, for the reasons best known to him. Finally opposite party No. 3 directed opposite party No. 4 to take up the selection process amongst all 73 applicants, who submitted their applications afresh and after preparation of check sheet and completion of the selection process, but before issuance of appointment orders, resubmit the selection file for review by the Divisional Authority. 9. As it appears from the impugned order dated 10.12.1998 (Annexure-5), while disposing of O.A. No. 300 of 1999 the learned Tribunal considering the submissions made by learned Counsel for both the parties and the specific points raised by the learned Counsel for the applicant/Petitioners, has been pleased to reject the contentions of the Petitioners that EDMM Recruitment Rules did not provide for review and categorically observed that if there is gross irregularities and illegalities in the process of selection, then obviously the concerned authority himself or his higher authority has every right to cancel the selection process, appointment made in pursuance thereof and order for fresh selection. It has also been noted that any administrative order is always capable of being reviewed by the higher authority. It has also been noted that any administrative order is always capable of being reviewed by the higher authority. Keeping in view the observations made by opposite party No. 3 in his office note dated 05.03.1998 with regard to rejection and/ or acceptance of the candidature in respect of individual candidates, namely, Upendra Kumar Sahoo, Biswa Ranjan Singh, Dhirendra Kumar Sill, Gokulananda Prusty, Bhagirathi Pati, Nityananda Sahu, Niranjan Behera, Sasadhr Dehury and Ors. learned Tribunal in the impugned order has categorically observed that: xxx xxx it is clear as the conclusion rightly drawn by Respondent No. 3 is that Respondent No. 4 had applied two separate standards one for the applicants who had come before this Tribunal and the other for the outsiders whose applications were rejected by giving some reasons or the other, even though the same were not tenable in most cases and the applications of Petitioners were accepted in spite of some of them not having done the necessary documentations. In consideration of the above, we find that the order of cancellation of the selection and appointments at Annexure-4 is fully justified. xxx xxx If a selection process is riddled with irregularity, favouritism and in the process some eligible candidates are screened out for No. fault of theirs and certain other candidates are considered and selected, even without necessary documentation, then the Departmental Authorities have every right to cancel the process of selection. Finally learned Tribunal disposed of O.A. No. 300 of 1998 and directed that xxx xxx before taking up fresh selection, Respondents should give a fresh opportunity to all the 73 candidates to submit complete documents. The impugned order also provides that after the fresh selection is made and before issue of appointment order, the file has to be submitted by Respondent No. 4 to Respondent No. 3. This is also a well come step and should be followed strictly. 10. The impugned order also provides that after the fresh selection is made and before issue of appointment order, the file has to be submitted by Respondent No. 4 to Respondent No. 3. This is also a well come step and should be followed strictly. 10. Considering the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the respective parties and after going through their pleadings as well as the impugned order dated 08.06.1998 (Annexure-4) and order dated 10.12.1998 passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A. No. 300 of 1998 (Annexure-5), we are of the considered view that No. illegality has been committed by opposite party No. 3 in passing the order dated 08.06.1998 (Annexure-4), since he has been vested with the power to review the case of appointment as per the Departmental Rules in force as well as the Circular / instruction issued by the Director General, Post and Telegraph in this regard and since opposite party No. 3 is higher in rank than opposite party No. 4, he has every right to review the selection process and pass appropriate order in the matter, if the selection process is riddled with irregularities, omission and commissions. As such, there is also No. illegality, irregularity and/ or manifest error of law in the impugned order dated 10.12.1998 passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A. No. 300 of 1998 (Annexure-5), which would call for any interference by this Court. 11. In view of the above, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as the same is devoid of any merit. However, there shall be No. order as to costs. 12. Since the writ petition is dismissed and the process of selection is already over in compliance of the order dated 10.12.1998 of the Tribunal (Annexure-5) as well as order of this Court dated 14.12.1998 passed in Misc.Case No. 16064 of 1998, the Departmental Authorities are directed to proceed with the matter. All Misc. Cases are accordingly disposed of and as such interim orders stand vacated. Final Result : Dismissed