VEMULIRI VEERAYYA Vs. SUPRINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The post of Extra Departmental Branch Post Master (EDBPM) at Narsaraopet fell vacant in the year 1998, on account of the retirement of the incumbent. The appointing authority i.e., 1st respondent herein initiated steps to fill the vacancy and accordingly communication was sent to the employment exchange to sponsor candidates, who fulfill the conditions, such as the person being a native of the village holding property, having requisite educational qualifications. The exchange is said to have sponsored about 20 candidates. The 1st respondent found that none of the sponsored candidates are eligible. To meet the exigency, he continued the process of selection. An advertisement was issued in the Village inviting the qualified and intending persons to participate. The petitioner and certain others responded. Ultimately, The petitioner was found suitable and he was appointed as EDBPM in August 1998. It is stated that he has been given the charge and was being paid the salary and other allowances from time to time. The 1st respondent issued notification dated 26.02.1999 proposing to fill that very vacancy. It was mentioned that it was reserved in favour of S.C. candidates and that in case, qualified S.C. candidates are not available, the cases of OBC candidates would be considered. The petitioner filed O.A. No. 447 of 1999 before the Hyderabad Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal, challenging the said notification. He pleaded that once he has been appointed against a clear vacancy, that too in continuation of selection process, there was no basis for the 1st respondent to take steps to fill it once again.

(2.) The O.A. was opposed by the respondents. They pleaded that the appointment of the petitioner was purely provisional and temporary in nature and the notification was issued to fill the vacancy on regular basis. Another contention was that once the vacancy is reserved in favour of S.Cs., others cannot be continued against it. The Tribunal dismissed the O.A., through order, dated 05.07.2000. Hence, this writ petition.

(3.) Heard Sri S.P. Girish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ponnam Ashok Goud, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the respondents.