om:25-cl-2013-feb — All departments should strictly adhere to the orders given by Tribunal without any variation. In this case, Tribunal ordered to call only Respondent No. 5 along with the Applicant herein for correcting the order of recruitment undertaken by the Department of Communication in Assam Circle and hence calling the other private Respondents except R-5 is against the orders of the Tribunal

All departments should strictly adhere to the orders given by Tribunal without any variation. In this case, Tribunal ordered to call only Respondent No. 5 along with the Applicant herein for correcting the order of recruitment undertaken by the Department of Communication in Assam Circle and hence calling the other private Respondents except R-5 is against the orders of the Tribunal — This chunk pertains to an Original Application (OA No. 207 of 2012) challenging the recruitment process in the Postal Department, where the applicant was not selected despite topping the merit list. ... — Facts: The Applicant herein applied for the recruitment in Postal Department for a post, but he was not selected. Hence he filed this OA challenging the impugned Letter No. VIG/5/XXX/2012, dated 4-7-2012 and prayed for review of the recruitment process by reconsidering the application and documents of three candidates called for verification of original documents on 24-3-2011 pursuant to the order in O.A. in 249 of 2011. The Applicant states that he topped the merit list but was not appointed on the alleged ground that he failed to produce the original income certificate and also failed to complete the application form. Hence he earlier filed O.A. No. 249 of 2011. In that OA, the Tribunal directed the Respondents therein to review the selection and if there is any trivial error, it may be corrected. While doing so, private Respondent R-5 also may be called and the result may be conveyed by a speaking order. In obeyance of that order, the Respondents called not only R-5 along with Applicant but also other private Respondent candidates. "Calling of others other than R-5 is incorrect," states the Applicant. The Respondent states that originally six applications were received out of which three applications were rejected. Even though the said three candidates did not assail the selection to meet the ends of justice, the three candidates were also called for the review selection. After hearing both sides, it was held: