UNION OF INDIA Vs. R GOPU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W.P.No.15725/2007 has been filed by the Postal Department challenging the order passed in O.A.No.720/2006 dated 19.10.2006 and W.P.No.15726/2007 has been filed challenging the order passed in O.A.No.734/2006 dated 19.10.2006. Since both the original applications came to be disposed of by a common order, we propose to dispose of both the writ petitions by a common order.

(2.) THE applicant was appointed as a Gamin Dak Sevak Mail Carrier on stop gap arrangement by order dated 10.10.2002. While he was working in the said post, he was orally terminated from service on 30.07.2004.This came to be challenged by the applicant before the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.117/2007, which was allowed on 02.11.2005. THE applicant filed a contempt petition in C.P.No.20/2006 to implement the said order and thereafter, the Department reinstated him as GDS MC on stop gap arrangement on temporary basis with effect from 01.08.2006. By Notification dated 11.08.2006 issued by the Inspector of Posts, Tiruvannamalai Sub-Division, applications were called for from eligible candidates for the post of Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Carrier. THE Notification also stipulated the eligibility conditions and other details. THE applicant applied for the said post under the Notification and simultaneously challenged the Notification before the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.734/2006.

(3.) THESE orders are questioned in the above two writ petitions. Mr.B. Shanthakumar learned counsel appearing for the Department would contend that the Tribunal has committed an error in holding that the stop gap appointment of the applicant pending regular recruitment cannot be terminated at any time and it has to be compulsorily continued till regular recruitment. The appointment of the applicant on stop gap arrangement cannot give a cause of action to him and he cannot maintain the original applications. He further contended that the applicant having participated in the selection, he is estopped from questioning the selection process. He also contended that the applicant cannot take a ground that there was no wide publication of the recruitment Notification, after having applied for the post pursuant to the said Notification. He would further contend that the Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the process adopted for filling up the post in question and the procedure adopted by the Department by sending the employment Notification to the District Employment Office, Village Administrative Officer, President of the local panchayat, Sub-Inspector of Police of the local police station and the Branch Post Master and Sub-Postmaster, which, according to him, is sufficient compliance of the publication requirement. He also relied upon a Notification issued by the Government of India stating that in respect of such posts if wide publication is to be resorted to, it would be cost prohibitive and therefore prayed for setting aside the orders passed by the Tribunal.