CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL Vs. H N DAYANANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal which has virtually granted the status of permanent appointee to the respondent though admittedly he was given appointment on the post of Extra Departmental Branch Post Master on provisional basis and as a stop-gap arrangement because the regular incumbent Sri B. James was put off duty in terms of Rule 9 of the Posts and Telegraphs Extra Departmental Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964 (in short the 'Rules').

(2.) It is a matter of record that the permanent incumbent to the post in question was put off duty because he was facing disciplinary proceedings. The Government instructions contained in D.G.P. & T. Letter No. 43-4/77-Pen dated 18.5.1979 read with Circular No. 19-34/99-ED & Trg., dated 30.12.1999 clearly stipulate appointment of provisional Extra Departmental Agents inter alia on the following grounds -

(3.) In the above circumstances, the respondent herein was given provisional appointment by the Sr. Superintendent of POs under letter dated 24.6.1997 clearly indicating that his appointment as ED BPM shall be in the nature of contract and shall be liable to be terminated by informing in writing as per the Rules. Subsequently, regular ED BPM Mr. James was dismissed from service on 2.12.1997. Accordingly, the respondent was intimated by letter dated 5.6.1988 (Annexure 'D') that since regular services of ED BPM Mr. James has been terminated therefore the vacancy is to be filled up by following the regular process of recruitment. It was also intimated to him that his service will be terminated after selection of a suitable candidate for the post in question. Thereafter, the vacancy was notified on 11.6.1998 under Annexure 'C'. But, immediately thereafter the respondent called in question the communication made to him under Annexure 'D' and notification at Annexure 'C' virtually claiming that he is entitled to be regularised on the post since he possessed all the requisite qualifications for the same except that relating to adequate means of income from landed property or immovable assets. The Tribunal on consideration of the submission addressed to it by the contesting parties in paragraph 13 gave the following direction :