1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2010
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTIOE V.O.SAE1~LA1~11faf""' 4 --. 5 » A
AND
THE RONBLE MRSJUSTICE E;V.NAOARAT:11\ux' A 1'
WRIT PETITION NO. 29292 OF'2O1o (s.c;a;Tj:4_ A' ''
BETWEEN
1.
A H " .{.E'¥ SR1 B: RRAMOD, ADV. ,)
UNION OF INDIA
BY SECRETARY, '-- .
DEPARTMENT OF POSTS," _ 5 '
DAK BHAVM, _
NEW DHELHL4 1.1.0 00.1.. g
OHIEE POST
KARNA,TAKA»O1RO-L_E,». ' '
BANGALORE --' 5(_30._GO '1'-;.. ' " v
POST.,MASTER GI\.IERA}L- A
SJOREOEON, ~
V' . BANGALORE -- 5"6O"'00'1.
SOPERm?1*END'ENT OF POST OFFICES,
" .UDOPI"D1v1S1;ON,
UOUPI ;¢.5S7-S101.
.. PETITIONERS
EAI\.D
' ''RAEVIESH FUKNDA
'HS/O SHEENA HANDA, 9}
" " AGED 34 YEARS,
VVORKING AS GDS BPM.
HANEHALLI B.O.
A/W BARKUR SO ~ 576 210.
[BY SR1 A.R. HOLLA, A£}V.,}
...REsPo1\ioE,1:w:_:'s..,_
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 2.2? '
CONSTITUTION or INDIA PRAYING "PO sET~hs1'DE'--~.firHE
IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CENTRAL"'ANDIM.ISTRfiTIVE
TRIBUNAL, BANGLAORE IN o.h.No..2.1v5;<to9._' '--Dii'ri«;_Dw.,.h'
11.06.2010 VIDE ANNEX--C.
THIS WP COMING ON HEARING
NAGARATHNA J., MADE THE FOLLQW1NG:-- $1" '
i 0Q_;:2_@_1:7h i
The Union of A India have filed
this writ petition;0A'fshallehgingigtheAdiiorderfiated 11-5-2010
passed by "Tribunal, Bangalore
Bench 0 it
2. had filed an application
challenging the o_:Vrd'e.r.Pdated"'23-4-2009 by which he was re-
itvdposteel.dassfirarneenadDaii Sevak (GDS BPM} and had sought
'for 't1r:1e:..said order and for consequential benefits.
The"Ifribunal's:a11owed the application of the respondent and
‘directed’~reinstatement of the respondent as Postal Assistant
consequentiai benefits and to treat the intervening
Idiaeriiod from 24-2-2009 till the date of his reinstatement as
_u””pez’iod on duty and granted three mont?hs time for
5
compliance. Being aggrieved by the said order, petitioners
have preferred this writ petition.
3. The respondent was appointed as GDS
42001. By notification dated 14-2-2007′ examin_aftionl.:’wasll
notified for selection to the post of
GDS category. The respondpent wasA_appoinpteE}. tijé”, ‘
provisional selection order 15-6-2002? :.’.=gis.’:’;§13Vostal
Assistant. He cornpletec’l..p_ and
thereafter was posted as :{;obn’sequent1y, he
tendered his resignation $19M on 30-11-
2007. T’11ereéi.fteiT.§”* show catfse””n.ovtiicev.;dated 27-12-2007 was
issued to hirn” to selection as Postal Assistant
cancei1_ed;. After considering his
should not ” be’
representationf _:Vord.er passed holding that his
‘ ‘appointment ‘as Postal”‘Assistant was irregular and the same
to the respondent by notification dated
23–‘éi=__2l009v_ ‘consequently, he was posted back as GDS
BMP. Under these circumstances, the respondent filed the
“application before the Tribunal.
4. In the reply statement. the petitioners herein stated
uulxthat the unfilled quota of vacancies (for promotion) of 2003,
2004 and 2006 was offered to the GDS of the recruitment
divisions and for the year 2003, there were two Vacancies in
the open category and one for the OBC category and
respondent was a candidate for OBC category. _
the recruitment Rules, GDS securing rnarks _not»the 0′
marks secured by the last direct .0
selected in the same year is eligible to b’e.V.selecte,d’ll’in
of Udupi Division, since there direct-recruitnient in
the examination year looked
at the results of nearby :Vre–i”erence point
and prescribed as percentage of
marks to be catididates under 0130
category the respondent
had secured_: 730.53!)/6;.» was made with the
Ud1_1piA.~D,iV}’SiO’f1,,_ show “cause notice was issued as per
l.Ai1neL:«:Lire3+;A1l.to thefietition. The Tribunal, on considering
the” and the fact that the respondent had
satisfied theleligizbility criteria, since he had secured 73.53%
. and the “last direct recruit of Puttur Division in the year 2005
and set aside the order dated 234-2009 and
[Mordered reinstatement of the respondent with all
it ‘ ‘ consequential benefits.
,5 1,
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioners and t.he respondent and perused the material. on _p
record.
6. It is contended on behalf of the petitionersf th,-he ‘
Tribunal was not right in ordering’ rein4statcm’ent._
respondent with all consequential .’penelf’1*t_slland since 1″:”:i§\,.
appointment was irregular, sho\rf’cau_se noti_c:@;4§’~.’,?{rasll’;§issued
and consequential “passed
terminating his services as re–posting
him as GDS sarne isAl:ini_”aC_coVrdance with law.
Therefore, the the’-:bfI’ribunal is to be set
aside.
7. Per 4’f.:p0I1’l’/17.*’_’-.1′;l/:’l€ftii”1f1eIZ’.«””C()u1’1Sel appearing for the
respondent th’atll”‘although the respondent had
. secured’ 7i;3′:_53% withV”regVard to the recruitment for the year
in _r’e.,spect._of Udupi Division, comparison was made
againslt the.lldiretctiy recruited candidate of Puttur Division
. and it wasierroneously held that he was not entitled to hold
of Postal Assistant and the Tribunal was justified in
_.__l”lgra;nting the order of reinstatement with all consequential
lrbenefits and the same does not call for interference.
…»
6
8. When the matter was heard on the last occasion,
learned counsel for the petitioners was directed to fi1’1dgC-Lglil
whether there was any vacancy of Postal Assistant ,,
Udupi Division and he submits that there is a 0
in the circumstances, the respondent” has ‘filed _a~ j;m¥;~1nio
stating that he would forego the pay ;indi1.;:11§xv.§i;¢es for
period from 24-2-2009 till the his .1feinstatei§fiei’it as
Postal Assistant, as orderedggby h i
9. Having regard the case and
considering that Vthie compared
the marks of since there
was no ciirect _Arec1fiiitrl31eritjvinstlie said year, we find that the
Tribunal “righ’t.sVinisholsding’.that the reason assigned for
issuing. the order dated.”-23-:4-2009 was not in accordance
sswith i.,_rfICiwgever, while granting relief to the respondent,
feifisgtétetivientv been ordered with all consequential
benefits and treat the intervening period from 24-2-2009
the date of his reinstatement as if he was on duty. We
jthat, portion of the order with regard to consequential
…fihers1ggfits could not have been granted by the Tribunal since
‘lathe respondent had not been in the service in the said post
53
and had not worked as Postal Assistant.