JUDGMENT : ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. 1. The prayer in the aforecaptioned Original Petition (CAT) filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is as follows: “.......to set aside Exhibit P5 order in O.A. No. 180/01153/2014 dated 28.09.2018 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, in the interest of justice.” 2. Heard Sri. P. Vijayakumar, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for the petitioners in the OP/respondents in the OA before the Tribunal and Sri. S. Vishnu, learned Advocate appearing for the sole respondent in the OP/original applicant before the Tribunal. At the relevant time, the respondent herein (original applicant before the Tribunal) was then holding the post of Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Deliverer (GDSMD), (referred to hereinafter for convenience as GDS). He had applied for selection in the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) invited by the Postal Department concerned for selection and appointment to the post of Multi Tasking Staff (MTS) under the Aluva Division of the Postal Department, for the selection year 2013. The original applicant being an eligible candidate who participated in the said competitive examination for the selection year 2013 and had secured 80 marks out of 100 among the eligible candidates who had part taken in the examination in the Aluva Division, and, another candidate by name Nisha M.R. had also secured the equal marks, viz. 80 marks in the said examination. The applicant being senior to the latter and as the latter candidate was otherwise eligible for reservation turn set apart for other backward classes (OBC), the 1st petitioner herein, Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Aluva Division had then issued Annexure A1 proceedings dated 13.11.2013 ordering that the original applicant and the above said Nisha M.R. are declared to have been selected for appointment in the said Competitive Examination for promotion to the cadre of MTS held on 20.10.2013 for the vacancies of the selection year 2013. It is common case that thereafter both the original applicant and the above said Nisha M.R. had secured appointment orders to the post of MTS. Annexure A2 is the appointment order dated 21.11.2013 issued by the appointing authority in the case of the original applicant in respect of the post of MTS. It appears that the said Limited Departmental Competitive Examination conducted on 20.10.2013 was a common selection examination for GDS candidates for various divisions including Aluva Division. Annexure A2 is the appointment order dated 21.11.2013 issued by the appointing authority in the case of the original applicant in respect of the post of MTS. It appears that the said Limited Departmental Competitive Examination conducted on 20.10.2013 was a common selection examination for GDS candidates for various divisions including Aluva Division. It appears that there is no complaint as regards the conduct of the examination or the marks awarded, as far as the selected candidates in Aluva Division is concerned to which the original applicant was selected and appointed. Later, it appears that one Smt. Sunitha K.A. who is a GDS in Alappuzha Division and who had taken part in the said Common Limited Departmental Competitive Examination conducted on 20.10.2013 had complained to the Postal authorities concerned that there was a fault in the answer key approved and published by the Postal Department for valuation of the answer scripts in the said examination. It appears that the Postal authorities had not taken any action on the said complaint of Smt. Sunitha K.A. Being aggrieved thereby, Smt. Sunitha K.A. who is a GDS of Alappuzha Division had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing original application as O.A. No. 174 of 2014 praying for directions by the Tribunal to the Postal authorities concerned to take action for examining the correctness or otherwise of the answer keys approved and published by the Department which was the basis for the valuation of the examination process. It appears that the Tribunal had admitted the said O.A. No. 174 of 2014 and no interim orders were passed thereon. Further, from the pleadings and materials on record it appears that presumably in view of the pendency of the said OA, the Postal authorities concerned had themselves taken action for examining the correctness of the answer key of the common LDC examination. Presumably, after getting expert opinion, the Postal Department apprised that there was fault in one of the standard answers for the answer key approved and acted upon by the Department in the evaluation process. Pursuant thereto, revaluation was ordered to be conducted in respect of the answer scripts of the candidates who had appeared in the said Limited Departmental Competitive Examination for the selection year 2013. We are now apprised by Sri. Pursuant thereto, revaluation was ordered to be conducted in respect of the answer scripts of the candidates who had appeared in the said Limited Departmental Competitive Examination for the selection year 2013. We are now apprised by Sri. S. Vishnu appearing for the original applicant (respondent herein) that the above said Smt. Sunitha K.A. who happened to be a GDS in Alappuzha Division secured the benefit of the said revaluation on account of the rectification of the answer key and she was duly given appointment as MTS consequent to her getting more marks in the revaluation process. Further, it is seen that since the said LDC examination was a common one for all the Divisions in the Kerala circle, the revaluation process had also affected the other Divisions concerned. It is the case of the petitioners herein/Departmental authorities that consequent to such revaluation in pursuance of the rectification of the answer key, it was found that the original applicant did not actually deserve the originally awarded 80 marks, but that, he could get only 79 marks out of 100 on the basis of such revaluation. Further, it is found that the above said Nisha M.R. and another candidate by name Ajesh U.J. both GDS in Aluva Division had secured 81 marks each in the said LDC examination consequent to the revaluation. Thereupon, the petitioners/Postal authorities concerned had issued Annexure A3 proceedings dated 17.12.2014 notifying the respondent herein (original applicant) that consequent to the said revaluation, his originally awarded mark was found to be faulty and that he has secured only 79 marks out of 100 and that the above said two candidates viz. Smt. Nisha M.R. and Sri. Ajesh U.J. secured 81 marks each and that since only two vacancies have been set apart for the selection year 2013 for the above said appointment to the post of MTS, respondent's (original applicant) appointment will have to be cancelled so as to accommodate Smt. Nisha M.R. as the first candidate in the unreserved turn and Sri. Ajesh U.J. who appears to be junior to Smt. Nisha M.R. is to be accommodated in the OBC turn. The crucial and relevant factual aspects of the matter is that the above said process of detecting alleged mistakes in the answer key and the declaration that the original applicant has secured only lower marks, etc. Ajesh U.J. who appears to be junior to Smt. Nisha M.R. is to be accommodated in the OBC turn. The crucial and relevant factual aspects of the matter is that the above said process of detecting alleged mistakes in the answer key and the declaration that the original applicant has secured only lower marks, etc. in respect of the already concluded selection year 2013 was made by the Departmental authorities concerned much after, even the issuance of the selection notification for the next selection year 2014 as well as even the conduct of the said examination for the selection year 2014. It is this proceedings at Annexure A3 dated 17.12.2014 that is challenged by the original applicant by filing the instant O.A. No. 1153 of 2014 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. The Tribunal as per the impugned final order dated 28.09.2018 has finally disposed of the said O.A. No. 1153 of 2014 filed by the respondent herein, on the ground that though it is true that the impugned Annexure A3 order dated 17.12.2014 was issued consequent to detection of mistake and that the Departmental authorities may have the power to correct such mistakes, the post in question is comparatively a lower category one, since it is MTS and that indisputably the respondent has not contributed anything to the said mistake or irregularity and that since the above said mistake correction process has been completed long after the issuance of the next selection notification for the year 2014 and even the conduct of the said next selection examination for the selection year 2014, it may not be right and proper to disturb his appointment and more so considering his advanced age. Moreover, the Tribunal has placed reliance on a series of final orders rendered by the Tribunal in such similar cases which are all pertaining to appointment to the next higher category of postman. Moreover, the Tribunal has placed reliance on a series of final orders rendered by the Tribunal in such similar cases which are all pertaining to appointment to the next higher category of postman. In all those cases mentioned in the impugned final order rendered by the Tribunal, it appears that the Tribunal has come to the considered conclusion that though the applicant concerned had received the appointment order and later it was found that there was some irregularity in the selection process, the applicant concerned could not be attributed with having had anything to do with the alleged irregularities in the selection process and considering the fact that the post of Postman is comparatively on the lower category and the competing employees are all low paid employees in the category of MTS, etc. justice and equity considerations may warrant necessary directions to ensure that such appointees are not disturbed at that point of time. It is on this basis that the Tribunal has rendered the present impugned final order dated 28.09.2018 in the instant O.A. No. 1153 of 2014. Incidentally, the Tribunal has also observed that if there are no posts whatsoever to accommodate the continuance of the original applicant, then the Department may consider the creation of supernumerary post to ensure compliance of the directions not to disturb the continuance of the original applicant in service as MTS. It is the above said final order rendered by the Tribunal on 28.09.2018 in O.A. No. 1153 of 2014 that is now under challenge before us. 3. We have heard Sri. P. Vijayakumar, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for the petitioners in the O.P. and Sri. S. Vishnu, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent herein/original applicant before the Tribunal. 4. We had on the previous two occasions requested both sides to get factual instructions and ascertain as to whether various similar orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal as in Annexure A7 final order dated 07.08.2013 in O.A. No. 1082 of 2012 and Annexure A8 final order dated 04.08.2015 in O.A. No. 755 of 2012 and connected case as well as the final orders passed by the Tribunal in various other OAs. on which reliance has been placed by the Tribunal in the above said Annexure A8 as well as the instant impugned final order dated 28.9.2018 in the present OA, have been challenged by the Postal Departmental authorities. Similar final orders of the Tribunal referred to in Ext.P5 and Annexure A8 are O.A. No. 182 of 2011, O.A. No. 576/2012, O.A. No. 755/2012 and various other orders of the Tribunal referred to in Annexure A7 and A8. It appears that in most of these cases, the post in question was Postman whereas in the instant case, the post involved is MTS, which is even inferior to Postman. We are now apprised by both sides that the Union Government authorities/Postal Departmental authorities have not made any challenge to the said consistent final orders passed by the Tribunal in such similar cases involving lower category posts of MTS/Postman, etc. by filing either review application before the Tribunal or O.P. (CAT) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the Division Bench of this Court. Therefore, it can be seen that what has been rendered by the Tribunal is only following the consistent view taken by the Tribunal mainly out of the equitable and other legal considerations to grant benefits in such situations of hardships and difficulties caused on account of situations for which the applicant concerned cannot be attributed with any responsibility and also considering the fact that the post in question is Postman in those cases, is lower category post and the feeder service for appointment is from the still lower category of MTS and taking note of the fact that they are all serving employees, fastly approaching the last span of their age and service, etc. 5. After anxious consideration of the instant case, we are not persuaded to take the view that the aforesaid considered view rendered by the Tribunal in the instant Ext.P5 final order dated 28.09.2018 in O.A. No. 1153 of 2014 is highly perverse, arbitrary or unreasonable. The impugned order has been rendered by the Tribunal by only consistently following the views taken in such similar cases of hardship and that too only regarding lower category posts like, Postman, MTS, etc. and that too in cases where the applicant concerned could not be attributed with any fraud in the mistake or irregularities, etc. The impugned order has been rendered by the Tribunal by only consistently following the views taken in such similar cases of hardship and that too only regarding lower category posts like, Postman, MTS, etc. and that too in cases where the applicant concerned could not be attributed with any fraud in the mistake or irregularities, etc. We are told that in the case in Annexure A8, the selection was sought to be redone on the ground of irregularities in the selection process on the basis of a Vigilance enquiry conducted by the Postal Department. The post involved therein is Postman. After hearing both sides, we are constrained to take the view that the degree of equitable consideration based on justice, equity and good conscience in the instant case would certainly stand on a higher pedestal compared to the case as in Annexure A8. At any rate, it would require equal or similar treatment. This we say so, for reasons more than one. Firstly, the petitioners have no case whatsoever that the applicant was in any way responsible for the mistake. Indisputably the mistake was only on account of the answer key which was initially approved and published by the Postal Departmental authorities and acted upon by them for the examination process. The applicant was given the benefit of the said selection process and he was not only selected but also granted appointment order. Further, there was no complaint whatsoever regarding the examination process as far as the competing candidates in the present Aluva Division is concerned and the solitary complaint was in respect of a candidate in Alappuzha Division. If at all the norms had permitted such revaluation, then it must be the bounden duty of the Postal authorities concerned to have considered the complaints against answer key, immediately after the announcement of the answer key and should have laid down some strict time line for submissions of complaints and such complaints should have been examined with all expedition, so that the mistakes, if any, in the answer key could have been detected and necessary revision made with all expedition, preferably at least before granting appointment order pursuant to the said selection process. At any rate, such action for re-evaluation and declaration of the revised results should have been effected at least prior to the issuance of the selection notification for the next selection year 2014 and, at any rate, well before the conduct of the examination for the next selection year 2014. Unfortunately, this has not been done. If this process has been done with all expedition, then a candidate like the original applicant could have certainly endeavoured to give his best at least in the next selection examination. Pursuant to the selection process for the year 2013, the results were announced as per Annexure A1 dated 13.11.2013 and the original applicant was given appointment order as per Annexure A2 dated 21.11.2013. It was long thereafter that the process of revaluation revision of the selection process is attended to be finalised by the issuance of Annexure A3 notice dated 17.10.2014 by which time the next selection process including the next selection for the year 2014 are already over. Therefore, we are of the firm view that the level of consideration based on equity, justice and good conscience would be on a higher pedestal in this case compared to the other cases or at any rate on an equal basis. 6. Further, after hearing Sri. P. Vijayakumar, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for the petitioners, we will certainly appreciate the concern of the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of the Postal Departmental authorities that the impugned order should not be seen as limiting the power of the selection authorities in correcting patent mistakes and in revising selection process, etc. After hearing both sides, we are constrained to take the view that the views taken by the Tribunal in the present case as well as in the other cited cases cannot be construed as in any manner limiting the power of the authorities in effecting correction of mistakes obtained in the selection process and revising the said selection process, more so, particularly, if such process of revaluation is explicitly provided for in the scheme and norms of the examination. The view taken by the Tribunal is only to the effect that in cases of lower level appointments as in the instant one, like Multi Tasking Staff (MTS), Postman, etc. The view taken by the Tribunal is only to the effect that in cases of lower level appointments as in the instant one, like Multi Tasking Staff (MTS), Postman, etc. where the irregularities in the selection process cannot in any manner be attributed to the applicant, then some level of considerations based on equity, justice and good conscience may be called for, which vestage of discretionary power is certainly vested with the Tribunal, being the court of first instance to exercise the plenary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of the provisions made by the Constitutional amendment by the engraftment of Article 323A of the Constitution of India and as explicitly incorporated in the legislative policy of the Parliament by the enactment of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1995. The said vestage of discretion conferred on the Tribunal cannot be said to have been exercised in a wrong, illegal or perverse manner in the present case. It is also now well established that in cases as in the present one, which is mainly based on appreciation of various factual aspects, then if a view is taken by the court of first instance like the Tribunal and so long as the said view cannot be branded as manifestly or palpably arbitrary, unreasonable or perverse, ordinarily even intra-court appellate interference may not be called for or justified. Of course, where there are serious questions of law and other aspects, which require a corrected perspective, a different approach could be taken, be it in intra-court appellate jurisdiction or in the present jurisdiction of judicial review and judicial superintendence as conceived under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the said considered view taken by the Tribunal, which is only on the basis of the application of the consistent orders passed by the Tribunal in such similar cases to the admitted facts of this case, cannot be branded by us as perverse or unreasonable and we are not in a position to interfere with the main direction of the Tribunal. However, we will certainly appreciate the submission made by Sri. P. Vijayakumar, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for the Postal Department, that the direction issued by the Tribunal even to create supernumerary post was not proper or justifiable. We are by now apprised by Sri. However, we will certainly appreciate the submission made by Sri. P. Vijayakumar, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for the Postal Department, that the direction issued by the Tribunal even to create supernumerary post was not proper or justifiable. We are by now apprised by Sri. S. Vishnu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent (original applicant) that apart from the two vacancies set apart for the instant selection year 2013, many other vacancies are available for the next selection years and are pending for appointment. Therefore, it appears that the applicant can be easily accommodated in the next available vacancy, after the appointment of the aforesaid two other incumbents. Further, it appears that pursuant to the selection made as per Annexure A1 dated 13.11.2013, not only the applicant but also the said Nisha M.R. were given appointment to the post of MTS and the appointment order given in the case of the original applicant is one at Annexure A2 dated 21.11.2013. Therefore, after the revision of the selection process as reported in Annexure A3 dated 17.12.2014, it appears that the other candidate concerned, viz. Sri. Ajesh U.J. would also have been given appointment to one of the then available vacancies, but possibly for vacancy which is set apart for the next selection year or that for the next selection years concerned. Thus, prima facie, it appears that all the three candidates concerned, viz. the original applicant, Sri. Vinod N.R. and the other two candidates, viz. Smt. Nisha M.R. and Sri. Ajesh U.J. have been continuing in service pursuant to the appointment orders given to them. Therefore, all what would be required is only to regularise the appointment of the original applicant made in terms of Annexure A2 order dated 21.11.2013, as indicated hereinabove and in such a scenario there will not be any necessity for creation of any supernumerary posts. Further, the Tribunal has not issued a mandatory direction that a post of supernumerary post should necessarily be created. All what has been incidentally observed by the Tribunal is that the question of creation of supernumerary post will be taken into consideration, if so really warranted and necessary. 7. Sri. P. Vijayakumar, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for the petitioners has pointed out that serious and pertinent aspects in this case, have not been considered by the Tribunal. 7. Sri. P. Vijayakumar, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for the petitioners has pointed out that serious and pertinent aspects in this case, have not been considered by the Tribunal. As per the impugned final order in O.A. No. 1153 of 2014, the Tribunal has in paragraph 11 directed not merely that the original applicant should be permitted to continue in service without disturbance, but also that his seniority in the category of MTS will be reckoned from the date he joined duty presumably in terms of Annexure A2 dated 21.11.2013. 8. After hearing both sides, we are of the firm view that the above said plea made by Sri. P. Vijayakumar learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for the petitioners has to be countenanced. There can be no two ways that after the revision of the selection process, the other two candidates Smt. Nisha M.R. and Sri. Ajesh U.J. alone could have been treated as the beneficiaries of the regular selection process. The original applicant's continuance could be only on the basis of the equitable directions issued by the Tribunal in the impugned order. Therefore, it is made clear that though appointment of the original applicant is to be regularised, his seniority has to be reckoned as being below both the above said regularly selected candidates after the selection process, viz. Smt. Nisha M.R. and Sri. Ajesh U.J. and as against the first available vacancy to which the original applicant could be accommodated and regularised subject to the above said direction regarding seniority. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no reasons to interfere with the main directions of the Tribunal. However, the other afore directions issued by the Tribunal require interdiction and we order that the impugned Ext.P8 final order dated 28.09.2010 rendered by the Central Administrative Tribunal Bench in O.A. No. 1153 of 2014 will stand modified in terms of the observations and findings made by this Court hereinabove. 10. The above O.P. (CAT) will stand disposed of.