om:132-cl-2018-Nov — Appellant herein alleging that he is continuing in the post of Extra- Departmental Branch Postmaster (ED BPM) from 2001 and hence he should be continued permanently. Respondent No. 4 who also appears to be a contender for that post was not present on the date of hearing. Hence Appellant should be treated as validly appointed and continued as per Rules

Appellant herein alleging that he is continuing in the post of Extra- Departmental Branch Postmaster (ED BPM) from 2001 and hence he should be continued permanently. Respondent No. 4 who also appears to be a contender for that post was not present on the date of hearing. Hence Appellant should be treated as validly appointed and continued as per Rules — Case details: C.A. No. 9077 of 2017, Mannu Prasad Singh v. Union of India and others. The case is about an appellant who has been continuing in the post of Extra-Departmental Branch Postmaster (ED BP... — Facts: Appellant is continuing as ED BPM from the year 2001 when he was appointed. It appears that Respondent No. 4 is a contender for that post who did not present himself, when notice was issued which could not be served. In that situation, Union of India (Respondent) was asked to hear both parties and reconsider the matter of selection. Both parties, Appellant and R-4, should be given an opportunity to hear them. In the process of reconsideration, all contentions of both sides should be looked into. Notice should be issued to both parties. The hearing of both parties should be untrammelled by any observation of the Central Administrative Tribunal.