ORDER
1. Admittedly the appointment order in favour of the respondent No. 1 was issued on 30th September, 1991 by the
Superintendent of Post Offices, Palamau Division, Daltonganj. It was the appointment based on this order, which was cancelled vide order dated 5th February, 1993, again issued by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Palamau Division, Daltonganj. This order dated 5th February, 1993 issued by the Superintendent of Post Offices was challenged by the respondent No. 1 before the Central Administrative Tribunal wherein he had impleaded as many as 6 respondents including the Superintendent of Post Offices and the Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices and the Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Garhwa Sub- division. Garhwa.
2. The learned Tribunal by the judgment under challenge in this petition, while setting aside the impugned order dated 5th February, 1993, directed the respondents to pass appropriate order with regard to reinstatement of respondent No. 1.
3. This petition challenging the aforesaid judgment of the Tribunal has been filed by the Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Garhwa and not by the Superintendent of Post Offices. Since neither any order passed by the Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices was under challenge before the Tribunal nor did the Tribunal issued any direction to him as such, the Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices cannot be considered and deemed to be a person aggrieved in any manner with respect to the judgment of the Tribunal and, therefore, he has no focus standi to file this petition or to challenge the order of a Tribunal. Strangely enough, the Superintendent of Post Offices has not chosen to come to this Court against the Tribunal. Why he has not done so, is neither understood nor has been explained in this petition.
4. This application is dismissed with costs assessed at Rs. 1000/-
5. Application dismissed.