JUDGMENT : Indrajit Mahanty, J. - The Union of India in this writ application has sought to challenge the order and judgment dated 12.11.1999 passed in O.A. No. 1 of 1999 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack, whereby, the Tribunal directed quashing the review of selection and appointment of Opp. Party No. 1, as well as, quashing the notice to show cause impugned thereto and directed that if in the meanwhile, the services of the applicant have been terminated, then he shall be re-instated forthwith with all back wages. 2. Mr. Mishra, Learned Asstt. Solicitor General, on behalf of the Union of India, contended that since the process of selection of Opp. Party No. 1 as EDDA-cum-EDMC of Kanikapara Branch Post Office, in Mangalpur Sub-Post, Office was reviewed and it was found that other candidates who had secured more marks in their matriculation examination had been rejected on the ground of not having provided residential certificates and character certificates. Mr. Mishra, in course of argument, placed reliance upon an earlier judgment of the CAT in O.A. No. 6 of 1999 which was disposed of on 31.5.1999 and submitted that the Tribunal in the said case had rejected the prayer of the applicant therein who was similarly situated as the present Opp. Party and therefore, submitted that the impugned order under Annexure-1 ought to have been similarly dismissed. 3. Mr. Patnaik, learned Counsel for Opp. Party No. 1 submitted that the reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the Union of India on the judgment rendered by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 6 of 1999 is misplaced since that very judgment was challenged by the applicant therein before this High Court and the High Court had allowed the writ application, reversing the finding of the Tribunal. Mr. Patnaik, submitted that that very judgment under Annexure-6 which was reversed by this High Court in writ petition, was also challenged by the Union of India before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the challenge by the Union of India came to be dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by its judgment dated 10.10.2006 in the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Bikash Kuanar in Civil Appeal No. 4385 of 2006. According to Mr. v. Bikash Kuanar in Civil Appeal No. 4385 of 2006. According to Mr. Patnaik, once the judgment of the Tribunal under Annexure-6 is hold not to be good law, the challenge to the impugned judgment in the present case under Annexure-1 passed in O.A. No. 1 of 1999, can no longer survive. 4. Upon hearing the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the writ application, counter affidavit and the connected judgments, we find that in the case of Union of India v. Bikash Kuanar (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court took note of the Division Bench Judgment of this High Court which is quoted herein below: 7. The Division Bench after hearing the Counsel for the parties observed that the power of review is conferred by the statute. In case of an appointment made under the Rules framed for the purpose of appointment, such appointment could not be cancelled either by the same authority or higher authorities in exercise of power of administrative exigency. 8. The High Court in the impugned judgment also stated that the civil rights had already accrued to the respondent who rendered one and a half years of service. Once such civil rights had accrued, the authorities exercising their executive power cannot review the appointment. 9. The Division Bench held that the administrative instructions have no statutory force, therefore, these cannot be enforced and following such instructions, the respondent's appointment could not be legally cancelled. TO. The Division Bench also directed that the respondent be given an opportunity to resume his duties within 30 days from the date of its order. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court came to conclude that the Division Bench Judgment of this Court had correctly applied the law and therefore, observed that since the respondent (similarly circumstanced as the present Opp. Party No. 1) had fulfilled all essential terms and conditions for appointment to the said post and had submitted all necessary documents before the prescribed date, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. From the above, it is clear that the Division Bench Judgment of this Court was affirmed by the Supreme Court and therefore, it is correctly stated by the learned Counsel for the Opp. Party that the Union of India cannot place reliance whatsoever on the judgment of the Tribunal under Annexure-6 to the writ petition. 5. From the above, it is clear that the Division Bench Judgment of this Court was affirmed by the Supreme Court and therefore, it is correctly stated by the learned Counsel for the Opp. Party that the Union of India cannot place reliance whatsoever on the judgment of the Tribunal under Annexure-6 to the writ petition. 5. From the impugned judgment under Arvnexure-1 to the writ application in O.A. No. 1 of 1999, it would be clear that the Tribunal also in paragraph-10 of the judgment noted its anguish that 1964 Rules do not provide any provision to meet a contingency where the appointing authority deliberately selects a less meritorious candidate. The Tribunal further noted that in absence of any provision under the 1964 Rules to meet such contingency, suitable steps should be taken to amend 1964 Rules to meet such contingency in future. The Tribunal further held that the Circular issued by the Director General of Posts. on 13.11.1997, which has been relied upon by the learned Asstt. Solicitor General, cannot over ride 1964 Rules which, have been issued under the authority of the Government of India. 6. It is stated at the Bar that 1964 Rules have now been repealed and in its place "Department of Posts, Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2001".has been promulgated on 24.4.2001 and under Rule-4 of 2001 Rules, power has now been vested on any authority superior to the Appointing Authority to call for records relating to the appointment of Gramin Dak Sevaks and if such Appointing Authority appears to have exercised jurisdiction not vested in law and/or to have failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested and/or to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, such superior authority may, after giving an opportunity of being heard, make such order as it thinks fit, and 7. We have noted this amendment only for the purpose of highlighting the fact that the amended Rules of 2001 were not at force at the time when Opp. Party No. 1's appointment was sought to be reviewed. We have noted this amendment only for the purpose of highlighting the fact that the amended Rules of 2001 were not at force at the time when Opp. Party No. 1's appointment was sought to be reviewed. The Rules prevalent at that time were, "The Posts and Telegraphs Extra-Departmental Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964" and in terms of Rule-6 thereof, the service of an employee who has not already rendered more than three years' continuous service from the date of his appointment was liable to be terminated by the "appointing authority". Therefore, the show cause notice issued to Opp. Party No. 1 not having issued by the appointing authority and. having been issued on the basis of the Circular of the Director General of Posts dated 13.11.1997, obviously such action was without any lawful authority and therefore, we are in agreement with the view expressed by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment and affirm the same. 8. In the present circumstance, since 1964 Rules were in operation at the relevant time, the impugned action of review of the petitioner's appointment was invalid in the eye of law. As noted herein above, the Hon'ble Supreme Court having concurred the view of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bikash Kuanar (supra), we find no other alternative other than directing dismissal of the writ application. Accordingly, the writ application is dismissed. No costs. L. Mohapatra, J. I agree Final Result : Dismissed