Union of India (UOI) vs Central Administrative Tribunal

F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.—Though the respondents 2 and 3 were duly served, they have not chosen to appear either in person or through

counsel. We therefore proceeded to decide the Writ Petition on merits, upon hearing the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioners.

The Postal Department is the petitioner herein. The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal passed in

O.A. No. 1062 of 2000, dated 4.5.2001.

The issue relates to the validity of the appointment made to the post of Extra-Departmental Sub-Postmaster (i.e. for short, EDSPM) for

Krishnapuram EDSO, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District, in a temporary vacancy.

One Thiru. V. Muthaiah was a permanent EDSPM of Krishnapuram EDSO. He was proceeded against by way of disciplinary action for having

committed fraud in RD Accounts and he was placed under off-duty with effect from 22.1.1999. Therefore, a temporary vacancy arose in the said

post. Before going in for a recruitment to fill up the temporary vacancy, the second respondent was nominated for appointment to the said post on

provisional basis with effect from 22.1.1999. Thereafter, applications were called for on 11.6.1999 and one Thiru. R. Ramkumar got selected and

appointed, by order dated 30.9.1999. However, since there were petitions against the selection of Thiru. R. Ramkumar, his appointment was

cancelled and the second respondent was again provisionally appointed with effect from 24.4.2000. Thereafter, the petitioners are stated to have

called for applications from the Employment Exchange and since there was no sponsorship made by the Employment Exchange, they went in for a

regular selection to fill up the temporary vacancy. The petitioners would claim that pursuant to their Notification, 45 candidates filed applications

including the second respondent herein, of whom, only 40 candidates attended for verification of the documents and in that selection, the third

respondent got selected on merits, as he had secured more marks in SSLC than the second respondent herein. In other words, the third

respondent was found more meritorious than the second respondent to hold the temporary vacancy which arose due to off-duty ordered against

the permanent holder of the post, namely Thiru. V. Muthaiah. The third respondent was appointed to the said post on temporary vacancy, by

order of appointment dated 11.9.2000.

Challenging the said appointment of the third respondent, the second respondent herein preferred Original Application No. 1062 of 2000 before

the Central Administrative Tribunal. The second respondent herein contended that himself, having been appointed on provisional basis to the post

of EDSPM of Krishnapuram EDSO and having allowed him to function for quite some time, the selection and appointment of the third respondent

herein ought not to have been made.

The said Original Application was resisted by the petitioners by contending that even for filling up of the post based on temporary vacancy, the

procedure prescribed for regular appointment has to be followed, that such a procedure was duly followed in the case of filling up of the temporary

vacancy of EDSPM, Krishnapuram EDSO in which the third respondent was found more meritorious by virtue of higher marks secured by him in

the SSLC than the second respondent herein as well as the third respondent satisfying the qualification of possessing the landed property.

The Tribunal however proceeded on the footing that one provisional appointment cannot be replaced by another provisional appointment. On

that sole ground, it had interfered with the selection and appointment of the third respondent herein.

Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioners.

On a perusal of the Original Application preferred by the second respondent herein and the reply affidavit filed before the Tribunal by the

petitioners herein, we find that the grievance of the second respondent was not merely on the ground that one provisional appointment was sought

to be replaced by another provisional appointment. On the other hand, the grounds raised in the Original Application filed before the Tribunal

disclose that the second respondent was very much aware of the fact that the appointment of the third respondent to the post of EDSPM,

Krishnapuram EDSO, came to be made by way of regular selection to that post, where the merits and demerits of several applicants including the

second respondent herein, who have applied for the post were considered, in which the third respondent herein was found to be a successful

candidate possessing better qualification in all respects than all the other candidates including the second respondent herein. In the Original

Application, the second respondent/applicant never contended that he was better qualified than the third respondent. On the other hand, it is on

record that in the marks scored in the SSLC Examination, as between the second respondent and the third respondent, the marks scored by the

third respondent was far high than the second respondent herein. That apart, the reply affidavit of the petitioners filed before the Tribunal discloses

that the third respondent also satisfied the other qualification of possessing the landed property, which persuaded the petitioners to select the third

respondent for being appointed to the post of EDSPM, Krishnapuram EDSO to fill up the temporary vacancy created due to the off-duty of the

permanent incumbent Thiru. V. Muthaiah.

In such circumstances, the conclusion of the Tribunal in interfering with the selection and appointment of the third respondent on the ground that

the provisional appointment of the second respondent cannot be replaced by another provisional appointment of the third respondent, is not borne

out by records, and therefore, the said conclusion in the impugned order of the Tribunal, cannot be sustained. We reiterate that the appointment of

the third respondent, dated 11.9.2000, was made as per the relevant Rules relating to the filling up of the post of EDSPM on temporary vacancy

and when his appointment was based on merits, the same ought not have been interfered with by the Tribunal.

The order impugned in this Writ Petition is therefore set aside. The Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs.