AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mohammed Nias.C.P. J.
This Original Petition (CAT) is filed by the applicant challenging the dismissal of his O.A. filed seeking a direction to the first respondent to allow the applicant/petitioner to carry on his work as Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Deliverer (GDS MD) Poonjar till the appointment of a regular hand.
The short facts leading to the O.A. are as follows:-
The petitioner was serving in the Department of Post as Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Deliverer in the various post offices under the second respondent from 2010 onwards. He had submitted an application when called for by the respondents for appointment as GDS. He approached the Tribunal for a direction to consider him for appointment taking into account his service in the postal department by filing O.A. No.180/91/2014, which was disposed of by order dated 5.2.2014 directing the respondents to consider the applicant as per the rules of appointment to the post of GDS branch Postmaster at any of the five vacancies for which he had submitted application and to communicate the decision thereon within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. After the order, the applicant was given stopgap employment as GDS MD at Poonjar Sub Post Office by the respondent on 4.11.2015 and he continued to work more or less continuously on this arrangement. Later, the first respondent invited application for regular appointment to the Post of GDS MD at Poonjar Sub Post Office by notice dated 10.3.2016. The applicant did not apply being over aged for the post. He approached the Tribunal by filing another O.A. for a direction to consider him for appointment taking into account his past experience. When that O.A. was pending consideration, another order was passed by the Department of Posts on 23.06.2016 raising the age limit to 40. The Tribunal by order dated 23.01.2017 in O.A. 180/554/2016 directed the respondents as follows:-
“As stated earlier, as per Annexure A-10 dated 23.06.2016 the entry age to GDS posts was raised up to 40 years with relaxation to 3 years to those belonging to OBC and 5 years in the case of candidates belonging to SC/ST. The relief sought for in this application is to quash Annexure A-1 dated 10.03.2016. Annexure A-10 was issued subsequent to Annexure A-3. The recruitment/selection process has not been completed. Hence, the benefit of Annexure A-10 may be available to the candidate to be selected for the post. But his claim that his past experience as GDS MD should also be considered for appointment to the post of GDS Mail Deliverer at Poonjar Sub-Post Office cannot be accepted. However, if the applicant applies for the post, and if the respondents relax the age so as to allow the applicant to participate in the selection process, then he can be allowed to participate in the selection process. It is made clear that the selection shall be made purely on merit.”
Aggrieved by the said order that did not permit consideration of the past experience of the applicant for appointment and that the Tribunal did not set aside the notice dated 10.3.2016, the applicant filed OP(CAT) No.201 of 2017 before this Court, which was disposed of on 9.8.2017 with the following directions:-
“The learned Asst. Solicitor General submits that part of the selection process like cycling test is already over. But in so far as Ext.P4 verdict has not been sought to be challenged from the part of the department and in view of the fact that the petitioner was serving the Department from 04.11.2015, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the Department to finalise the selection process; also permitting the petitioner to participate in the proceedings based on the application stated as preferred by the petitioner. The said consideration shall be in tune with the relaxed norms as per Annexure A10 and the matter of age relaxation to the extent the applicant has served the department shall also be considered by the department, in accordance with law, passing appropriate orders in this regard.”
The present OA was filed by the applicant stating that the respondents have violated the above orders of the Tribunal and this Court and had not taken any action to complete the process of appointment to the post of GDS MD, Poonjar as was initiated by the notice dated 10.03.2016 and thus orders are disobeyed. There is also an attempt to replace the applicant by inducting another outsider though the applicant had a continuous service from 4.11.2015. It is also pointed out that from 8.6.2018 the first respondent orally ordered the third respondent not to entrust any work to the applicant, as such, he was not attending the office and is without any work. The relief sought in the O.A. was to direct direct the respondents to allow the applicant to work as GDS MD, Poonjar Sub Post Office till the regular hand is appointed, pursuant to the selection notification dated 10.03.2016. The Tribunal passed an interim order on 25.06.2016, which reads as follows:-
“Admit. Shri.N.Anilkumar, Sr.PCGC(R) takes notice on behalf of the respondents and prays for time for filing reply statement.
At this stage, we feel it necessary in view of the categoric directions of the Hon'ble High Court in OP(CAT)201/2017 to direct the respondents not to engage any outsider other than the applicant as GDS MD at Poonjar till a regular hand is appointed in the above post.”
The respondents submitted that the whole process based on the notification dated 10.03.2016 was carried out in which the applicant also participated and he was not selected because of his low merit score compared to the selected candidate. The selected candidate, after successful completion of the training of two weeks, joined the post on 25.8.2020. The Tribunal after considering the rival contentions found that the applicant had in fact participated in the process but was not considered because of lesser merit when compared to the selected candidate. Accordingly, Tribunal finding that there is no merit in the claim of the applicant, rejected the OA.
We have heard Sri.R.P.Padmanabhan Nair, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.R.Rajkumar, the learned Central Government Counsel for the respondents.
Before us, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no test as such and the applicant was not allowed to participate in the selection process. It is also alleged that even the person appointed is only on provisional basis and that it would show that a regular appointment has not been made and therefore, the petitioner's services cannot be terminated. Since the applicant questioned the nature of the appointment of the selected candidate, we directed the learned counsel appearing for the respondents to respond to the said allegation.
Today, the learned standing counsel by producing a letter from the Office of the Inspector Posts, Pala Sub Division, Pala dated 15.06.2021 stated that the selected candidate was not regularised only because of the pendency of the above original petition (CAT) and on account of the orders passed in this original petition dated 31.03.2021. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no test conducted or merit assessed and the same will be seen from the entire files. We do not propose to go into the correctness of the said allegation as the prayer sought for in the O.A. before the Tribunal namely, to allow the applicant to continue till a regular hand is appointed has become infructuous. We leave it open to the applicant, if so advised, to challenge the selection and the appointment made.
In such circumstances, we do not think that the petitioner can be given any relief in the original petition on the basis of the reliefs sought in the original application filed before the Tribunal. Accordingly, the original petition (CAT) is disposed reserving the liberty to the applicant to challenge the selection and appointment made pursuant to the notification dated 23.06.2016, if so advised.
The Original Petition (CAT) is disposed as above.