SWETAPADMA BASTIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, by means of this writ petition, seeks to quash the order dtd. 12/1/2015 passed in O.A. No.260/00502 of 2012 under Annexure-3, by which the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack has set aside the selection of the petitioner as Grama Daka Sevak Branch Post Master (GDSBPM) of Khatkhatia Branch Post Office and directed opposite party no.3 to consider the candidature of opposite party no.4 vis-"-vis others to the post of GDSBPM, and further to quash the consequential order dtd. 17/8/2015 under Annexure-5, by which opposite party no.3, in compliance of Annexure-3, has quashed the selection of the petitioner as GDSBPM, Khatkhatia Branch Post Office in account with Baghiabahal SO issued vide office letter no.APP/ED/GDS/A-80 dtd. 27/4/2012.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that the post of GDSBPM of Khatkhatia Branch Post Office in account with Baghiabahal Sub-Post Office fell vacant due to retirement of the regular incumbent and in order to fill up the said vacancy, notification was issued on 23/11/2011 to the District Employment Officer, Boudh to sponsor the names of the candidates, besides issuing local open notification inviting applications from open field candidates fixing the last date of receipt of application as 22/12/2011. In the said notification, it was specifically mentioned that the post was offered to the candidate from the UR community and in case minimum required number of three candidates of the said community are not available the vacancy will go to the other community candidate in the order of OBC, ST and SC.

(3.) Ms. B.K. Pattanaik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that even though notice was issued to the petitioner in O.A. No.260/00502 of 2012, she had not received the same and was also not aware of such litigation. Moreover, she has been performing her duty in the post of GDSBPM of Khatkhatia Branch Post Office. But, the Tribunal quashed her appointment relying upon the letter dtd. 17/9/2003 of the Government of India in Department of Posts, wherein it has been stated that the certificate regarding the other source of income is to be submitted before appointment. It is contended that the application of opposite party no.4 was incomplete and was not properly filled up and, thereby, the authority had rightly rejected the application of opposite party no.4 as per Clause-8 of the notification dtd. 23/11/2011 under Annexure-1, which stipulates 'Applications received after the prescribed date, applications not accompanied by the required documents and applications which are incomplete will be rejected.' It is further contended that neither the advertisement nor any requisition was made to the employment exchange indicating that the certificate regarding other source of income is to be submitted before appointment. Therefore, the Tribunal has committed gross error apparent on the face of the record relying upon the notification which was neither circulated nor referred to in the advertisement nor requisition made to the employment exchange. It is further contended that reliance placed on any notification that should be formed part of the advertisement or requisition made to the employment exchange. It is further contended that the Tribunal, while passing the order impugned dtd. 12/1/2015, has not considered the experience of 3 ' years gained by the petitioner and also not issued direction to the authority to give her alternative appointment in any nearby Post Office as per GDS Rules. Thereby, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It is further contended that in compliance of the order dtd. 12/1/2015 passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.260/00502 of 2012, opposite party no.3, vide order dtd. 17/8/2015, terminated the services of the petitioner, who had completed 3 ' years of service, without giving alternative appointment in view of DGP&T letter no.295-4/53 dtd. 8/8/1953, wherein it has been decided that the ED Agents, whose services are to be dispensed with on departmentalization of their offices, may be provided for in other available Extra-Departmental posts if they are suitable and willing. Thereby, termination of the petitioner from service by order dtd. 17/8/2015 under Annexure-5 passed by opposite party no.3 cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the same is liable to be quashed. To substantiate his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the apex Court in Dhananjay Malik and Ors. v. State of Uttaranchal and Ors., (2008) 2 ATT (SC) 183.