UNION OF INDIA Vs. GANDIKOTA RAMESH REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Harinath N., learned Assistant Solicitor General, for the petitioners.

(2.) The present Writ Petition has been filed against the order dtd. 28/11/2019 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal"), in Original Application No.020/00083/2014, by which the petitioners have been directed to finalize the selection, if already not done, with regard to appointment on the post of Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Post Master for Tappetla village, Kadapa district, by choosing a candidate within the panel that is prepared on the basis of the marks obtained by the candidates, without taking recourse to fresh notification.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the post of Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Post Master (GDS BPM), Tappetla village, Kadapa district, became vacant in the year 2011 on account of promotion of the incumbent and thus notification was issued on 27/7/2011 inviting applications. However, it was submitted that the selection could not materialize and thus another notification was issued on 3/4/2012, which also could not fructify leading to a third notification being issued on 9/11/2012, in which, 5 candidates were selected but none could be finally appointed. It was submitted that the respondent/applicant in O.A. No.020/00083/2014 was not among the 5 selected candidates and thus his case was not considered. Learned counsel submitted that even after 2012, there was another notification on 19/1/2016 but due to interim order in the said OA, dtd. 4/5/2016, the process could not be taken forward. Learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal has held that on the narration of facts in the counter affidavit it cannot be said that any injustice was done to the applicant but still has directed to fill up the post on the basis of panel prepared in the transaction of the year 2012 without resorting to fresh notification, which is against the settled principles of law. It was contended that the respondent did not figure in the selected candidates and thus could not have been considered and further that due to efflux of time the process had begun afresh and would have been completed but for the interim stay granted by the Tribunal. It has further been contended that till date there has been no appointment on the post in question. It was submitted that the petitioners propose to finalize the said selection within the shortest possible time by issuing fresh notification in addition to the notification issued on 19/1/2016 so that all eligible persons as on date can apply and take part in the process as also to increase the chances of there being somebody finally selected.