JOLLY D Vs. CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ Petition is filed challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal declining petitioner's prayer for direction to the respondents for regularisation of his service under the norms issued by the Director General of Postal and Telecommunication. We have heard counsel appearing for the petitioner and Asst. Solicitor General appearing for the respondents. Petitioner was appointed as a leave substitute for Extra-Departmental Branch Postmaster in the year 1993. Since the employee on leave was superannuated, petitioner was allowed to continue until 1998. In the year 1998, department started selection proceedings wherein one Sri. Binu Mahid got appointed under the quota reserved for SC/ST community. According to the respondents, the post was reserved for SC/ST and therefore even though petitioner was allowed to participate under orders of the Tribunal, he was not selected. However, later it turned out to be that the person who claimed the status of SC community and got appointment through fraudulent certificate about community, was dismissed from service in the year 2005. In the vacancy arising on account of dismissal of the said person, petitioner again put up a claim by approaching the Tribunal, which directed the respondents to consider the petitioner for appointment on provisional basis. Respondents again inducted the petitioner in service in 2005 and he is continuing as of now. Petitioner approached the respondents for regularisation based on the norms issued by the Department, which provides for regularisation of temporary employees if they have rendered three years' service. However, Tribunal declined the petitioner's prayer for regularisation for the reason that petitioner got appointment and continued in service not by undergoing any process of selection, but either under orders of Tribunal or this Court or through appointment as a substitute in a leave vacancy. It is against this order of the Tribunal that petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.

(2.) Admittedly petitioner has put in more than 10 years' service as an Extra-departmental Branch Postmaster, though not as a regular employee. Respondents have no case that the service rendered by him in the course of 10 years was not to their satisfaction. The question to be considered is whether appointment and continuation of the petitioner for the last 10 years is a temporary employment under the norms for regularisation. Tribunal probably thought that appointment made pursuant to direction issued by the Tribunal or by this Court is not an appointment by observing any procedure. We do not think the view taken by the Tribunal is tenable because Tribunal and this Court on earlier occasions directed the department to consider petitioner for re-employment on provisional basis only because of his appointment in a substitute leave vacancy made by the department voluntarily and the successful completion of 5 years as a substitute employee from 1993 to 1998. So much so it cannot be said that petitioner's appointment and continuation is irregular or against the procedure prescribed. It is also to be seen that though post was reserved for SC/ST community, only one person got selected in the selection process conducted by the department and he was himself later found to be ineligible as he produced only bogus certificate to prove his community. Department has no case that any other eligible candidate selected from the SC/ST community in the list prepared in 1998 was available and if it was there as and when the first person was removed, such other candidate would have claimed the post. So much so, in our view, the post has to be dereserved as there are no suitable candidates from that community in that area. Of course we do not want to make any direction to the Department in this regard and it is upto them to consider norms for reservation of posts and dereservation. However, considering the 10 years successful service of the petitioner, though on a provisional basis, we feel he is entitled to be considered for regularisation under the norms issued by the Director General of Postal and Telecommunication Accordingly respondents are directed to consider petitioner's regularisation treating his appointment as one made in terms of the norms that entitle a candidate to be considered for regularisation. Petitioner should be allowed to continue until a decision is taken by the respondents as stated above.