UNION OF INDIA Vs. A SUGUNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE the issue raised in all the writ petitions is common, they are being disposed of by the following common order. Aggrieved by the individual orders of the Central administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, directing the respondents therein to include the applicants in the dovetailed list and consider their case, Postal Department has filed the above writ petitions.

(2.) FOR convenience, we shall refer the case of the parties as stated in W. P. No. 5026 of 2003. According to the petitioner -Superintendent of Post Offices, Salem West division, Salem, the post of branch postmaster, kattanachampatti branch office in account with the Rasipuram sub-post office fell vacant on march 4, 1998. Till a regular incumbent is selected and posted, the first respondent-A. Suguna was appointed purely on temporary basis for a period from March 4, 1998 to May 3, 1998, and it was subsequently extended from may 4, 1998 to November 15, 1998. The said appointment was made with a specific condition that she would be terminated when regular appointment is made and she shall not have any claim to appoint to any post.

(3.) IT is further stated that the vacancy for the post of branch postmaster, Kattanachampatti was notified and selection was done on september 20, 1998. One A. Saraswathi who had secured highest marks in the 10th Standard was selected and appointed with effect from november 16, 1998. The first respondent also applied for the post, but was not considered as she did not fulfil the eligibility conditions. Further, since the other applicant-A. Saraswathi was selected and appointed by following due process, the temporary appointment given to the first respondent was terminated on November 16, 1998. The first respondent filed O. A. Nos. 973 and 1032 of 1998 challenging the selection of A. Saraswathi for the said post. The Tribunal by order, dated september 16, 1999, dismissed both the original applications with an observation that the applicant/first respondent cannot claim regularisation based on her temporary service. Therefore, she filed another original application, viz. , O. A. No. 978 of 2001 seeking for a direction to include her name in the dovetailed list based on her temporary service from March 4, 1998 to November 16, 1998. The said original application was disposed of by the Tribunal with direction to the respondent therein to consider the request of the applicant/first respondent.