GHULAM HUSSAIN MALIK Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide order No. B/EDDA/B. Lamer dated 19.1.1980, the petitioner was appointed as Extra Departmental Delivery Agent (EDDA). He took over the charge on 2.2.1980 as EDDA Brinel Lamer. In terms of order dated 19.7.1991, he on 25.7.91 assumed the charge as Branch Master, Brinal Lamer form Smt. Maryama Banoo. On 28.11.1991, he made application to the Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Kashmir Division, Srinagar requesting him to regularise his services as Branch Post Master Brinel Lamer in pursuance to D. G. Posts letter No. 43-27/85-Pen. (EDC & Trg.) dated: 12.9.1988. The application was sent through registered post (Annexure-D).

(2.) Instead of deciding the above said representation within reasonable time, the Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Srinagar Divn. vide his letter No. A-1/29(B)/Vol-II/45 dated 9/10/1995 demanded a panel of five candidates from the District Employment Officer, Anantnag to fill up the post of EDBPM (B. Lamer). The eligibility criteria was prescribed in the letter. A similar request had been made by sending a copy of the letter to respondent No. 4 (Assistant Superintendent of Post offices Anantnag Kashmir) and in response he sent his reply vide letter No. A/B. Lamer dated 17.11.1995 to respondent No. 3 wherein the names of eight persons were mentioned for the appointment against the post. The name of the petitioner had figured at S. No. 8, Respondent No. 3 (Sr. superintendent Post Offices, Srinagar) vide his memo No. PF/BL/27 dated 6.1.1997 appointed respondent No. 5 as EDBPM Briner Lamer Khanabal (Annexure-E). Through the medium of this writ petition this order has been challenged by the Petitioner on the following grounds:

(3.) In the counter respondents (no. 1 to 4) raised preliminary objections about the maintainability of the writ petition by stating that no legal right of the petitioner has been infringed. On facts it is pleaded that the petitioner has been holding the charge of EDBPM of Village B. Lame, in addition to his own duties since 25.7.1991. This post had to be filled up in accordance with the mode provided under P & T Extra Departmental Delivery Agents Service & Conduct Rules 1964. Respondents accordingly made requisition from employment Exchange Anantnag to sponsor the names for making a selection against this post and amongst sponsored names respondent No. 5 was selected. It is denied that representation dated 28.11.1991 (Annexure-D) was received by respondent No. 3. It is pleaded that petitioner himself was In-charge of the concerned branch Post Office and certificate of posting (Annexure-D) is fake. Respondent No. 4 was not appointing authority for the post of EDBPM but he can make the stop gap arrangement to run the current duties of EDBPM. The Petitioner had worked against the post in the stop-gap arrangement. It is admitted that on 1.6.1991, the necessity arose for fulfilling the post in question and the petitioner was engaged in stop-gap-arrangement on 25.7.91. Qualification for the appointment of the post at that time was middle standard. Subsequently in the year 1995 it was changed and eligibility qualification was raised upto matric pass. The post could not be advertised because of the prevailing abnormal law and order conditions in the valley. Petitioner is not eligible to be appointed as DEBPM as he is not matriculate. The petitioner is already holding the post of EDDA which carries more pay than EDBPM. The name of petitioner was not sponsored by Employment Exchange. The petitioner did not challenge requisition letter when it was issued in the year 1995. The selection was made subsequently in the year 1997. Petitioner was not eligible as per the letter of D. G. Posts dated 12.9.1988 as he was not a resident of that area.