JUDGMENT : A S BOPANNA, J. 1. Heard Ms. A. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. H. Gupta, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3. 2. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 19.05.2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal ("CAT" for short) passed in OA No.040/0000131 of 2014. Through the said order CAT had dismissed the application filed by the petitioner herein. 3. The petitioner, respondent No.4 and one Ms. Anupama Baruah had participated in the selection process for the appointment of Gramin Dak Sevak, Branch Postmaster (GDS BPM) at Bhuyakhat BO. In the process of selection, the petitioner herein was selected. Though this was the position, the official respondents issued the order dated 13.03.2014 wherein it was indicated that the Competent Authority was of the opinion that recruitment had not been done in an appropriate manner and certain anomalies are noticed therein. In that view, the Competent Authority had ordered that the provisional appointment of the petitioner herein should be cancelled after serving him due notice. The said order was impugned by the petitioner in the application before the CAT. During the process of consideration, the CAT had taken note that two other candidates, namely, the respondent No.4 herein and Ms. Anupama Baruah had secured more marks than the petitioner herein in HSLC examination. In that light, the CAT was of the opinion that the records disclose that the deficiency as indicated in the Tabulation is not correctly done and therefore, had dismissed the application filed by the petitioner herein. It is in that light, the petitioner is before this Court in this petition. 4. At this stage it is also necessary to take note that subsequent to the order passed by the CAT, the official respondents have also passed the order of termination dated 27.07.2016 which is also assailed herein. Though no specific order to set aside the same is made herein, the learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the order passed by the CAT and consequently the order dated 13.03.2004 and also the order dated 27.07.2016, would contend that the selection in the first instance made is in accordance with law. It is her contention that even though the respondent No.4 herein and Ms. It is her contention that even though the respondent No.4 herein and Ms. Anupama Baruah had secured higher marks than the petitioner in the HSLC examination, their applications were not in order as noted by the Selection Committee. It is her contention that when the applications are not filed in an appropriate manner in respect to the advertisement, the very consideration on their case would not arise and if this aspect of the matter is kept in view, the selection of the petitioner would be justified as the petitioner's application was as per the requirement. 5. The learned counsel for the official respondents would seek to sustain the order passed by the CAT. It is his contention that the official respondents at the first instance, having taken note of the discrepancies that had crept in while the Selection Committee make certain observations had sought to rectify the same by issuing the order dated 13.03.2014. He contends that the CAT in that background had referred to the original records and having found that the observation made by the Selection Committee with regard to the applications of the respondent No.4 herein and Ms. Anupama Baruah not depicting the correct position had arrived at the conclusion. In that light, it is contended that when the official respondents have taken further steps to rectify the error and the CAT had approved it, the same does not call for interference herein. It is also his contention that subsequent to the order passed by the CAT, the order of termination dated 27.07.2016 has been issued and since the same provides a separate cause of action and since the petitioner has not assailed the same before the appropriate forum, a consideration at this point does not arise. 6. In the light of the contentions put forth, we have perused the petition papers including the order passed by the CAT. The factual aspects as noticed above would indicate that in so far as the respondent No.4 herein and Ms. Anupama Baruah having secured more marks in HSLC examination than that of the marks obtained by the petitioner, the same cannot be disputed. Even in that circumstance, the issue is as to whether the appointment of the petitioner could have been set aside in the manner as is sought to be done by the respondents. Anupama Baruah having secured more marks in HSLC examination than that of the marks obtained by the petitioner, the same cannot be disputed. Even in that circumstance, the issue is as to whether the appointment of the petitioner could have been set aside in the manner as is sought to be done by the respondents. It is no doubt true that the CAT while considering these aspects of the matter has indicated that the records does not reflect any deficiency as mentioned in the Tabulation and therefore, has not entertained the application filed by the petitioner herein. However, the CAT has not spelt out the error that has been committed by the Selection Committee so as to approve the action subsequently taken by the Competent Authority to direct issue of notice to cancel the appointment through the impugned order dated 13.03.2014. In that background, a perusal of the Tabulation as made by the Selection Committee would indicate that the Selection Committee has indicated the details in the column wherein a provision with regard to "list of documents wanting" is contained. In the said column the details with regard to the documents not submitted by respondent No.4 herein and Ms. Anupama Baruah has not been referred to. 7. Though the learned counsel for the official respondents submits that the records contains the necessary documents submitted by the respondent No.4 herein and Ms. Anupama Baruah it is seen that in the Form, the specific column has been left blank. He, however, contends that when the documents were available on record the CAT was justified in taking note of the same accepting the case of the respondents herein. Such contention, in any event, cannot be accepted by us. It is for the reason that firstly, if the details of the documents are not entered in the Application Form, even if documents are available in the file, at this point there can be no assumption that such documents were produced along with the application and an application completed in all respects had been filed before the last date on which it was required to be filed. Further, the notification dated 17.07.2013, by which applications had been called for the post of Gramin Dak Sevak would indicate the eligibility conditions and the enclosures to be submitted along with the application. Further, the notification dated 17.07.2013, by which applications had been called for the post of Gramin Dak Sevak would indicate the eligibility conditions and the enclosures to be submitted along with the application. It is in respect of the said requirement the Selection Committee had taken note that the details relating to the same has not been furnished and in that light, has not considered the case of the respondent No.4 herein and Ms. Anupama Baruah as the candidates had not filed the completed applications in all respects. In that light, when they were eliminated from the selection process, the petitioner herein who obtained 44.58% marks in HSLC examination and had filed the application which was complete in all respects was eligible and had accordingly indicated him as the selected candidate. The reason for such decision is also indicated in the Tabulation made by the Selection Committee. If that be the position, the action consequently taken on 13.03.2014 was not justified. If that be so, the conclusion reached by the CAT also cannot be sustained. In that background, if the order dated 27.07.2016 terminating the service of the petitioner is taken note, the same is a consequence of the notice dated 13.03.2014 which was issued and assailed before the CAT and in a circumstance wherein we have found the same to be not justified and have also found the order passed by the CAT not being in accordance with law, the challenge to the said order in a separate proceeding before the CAT, in any event, would not be necessary. The same being consequential order, the same is also liable to be set aside herein. 8. Accordingly, the communication dated 13.03.2014, the order dated 09.05.2016 passed by the CAT and the consequential order dated 27.07.2016 passed by the official respondents are set aside. 9. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.