IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 23910 of 2009(S)
1. D.JOLLY, G.D.S.B.P.M,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL,
... Respondent
2. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICE,
3. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.KARTHIKEYA PANICKER
For Respondent :SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice B.P.RAY
Dated :17/12/2010
O R D E R
C.R.
C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, &
BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ.
--------------------------------------------
W.P.C. No. 23910 of 2009
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of December, 2010
JUDGMENT
Ramachandran Nair, J.
Writ Petition is filed challenging the order of the Central
Administrative Tribunal declining petitioner’s prayer for direction to
the respondents for regularisation of his service under the norms issued
by the Director General of Postal and Telecommunication. We have
heard counsel appearing for the petitioner and Asst. Solicitor General
appearing for the respondents.
2. Petitioner was appointed as a leave substitute for Extra-
Departmental Branch Postmaster in the year 1993. Since the employee
on leave was superannuated, petitioner was allowed to continue until
1998. In the year 1998, department started selection proceedings
wherein one Sri. Binu Mahid got appointed under the quota reserved
for SC/ST community. According to the respondents, the post was
reserved for SC/ST and therefore even though petitioner was allowed
2
to participate under orders of the Tribunal, he was not selected.
However, later it turned out to be that the person who claimed the
status of SC community and got appointment through fraudulent
certificate about community, was dismissed from service in the year
2005. In the vacancy arising on account of dismissal of the said
person, petitioner again put up a claim by approaching the Tribunal,
which directed the respondents to consider the petitioner for
appointment on provisional basis. Respondents again inducted the
petitioner in service in 2005 and he is continuing as of now. Petitioner
approached the respondents for regularisation based on the norms
issued by the Department, which provides for regularisation of
temporary employees if they have rendered three years’ service.
However, Tribunal declined the petitioner’s prayer for regulrisation for
the reason that petitioner got appointment and continued in service not
by undergoing any process of selection, but either under orders of
Tribunal or this Court or through appointment as a substitute in a leave
vacancy. It is against this order of the Tribunal that petitioner has filed
this Writ Petition.
3. Admittedly petitioner has put in more than 10 years’ service as
an Extra-departmental Branch Postmaster, though not as a regular
3
employee. Respondents have no case that the service rendered by him
in the course of 10 years was not to their satisfaction. The question to
be considered is whether appointment and continuation of the
petitioner for the last 10 years is a temporary employment under the
norms for regularisation. Tribunal probably thought that appointment
made pursuant to direction issued by the Tribunal or by this Court is
not an appointment by observing any procedure. We do not think the
view taken by the Tribunal is tenable because Tribunal and this Court
on earlier occasions directed the department to consider petitioner for
reemployment on provisional basis only because of his appointment in
a substitute leave vacancy made by the department voluntarily and the
successful completion of 5 years as a substitute employee from 1993 to
1998. So much so it cannot be said that petitioner’s appointment and
continuation is irregular or against the procedure prescribed. It is also
to be seen that though post was reserved for SC/ST community, only
one person got selected in the selection process conducted by the
department and he was himself later found to be ineligible as he
produced only bogus certificate to prove his community. Department
has no case that any other eligible candidate selected from the SC/ST
community in the list prepared in 1998 was available and if it was there
4
as and when the first person was removed, such other candidate would
have claimed the post. So much so, in our view, the post has to be
dereserved as there are no suitable candidates from that community in
that area. Of course we do not want to make any direction to the
Department in this regard and it is upto them to consider norms for
reservation of posts and dereservation. However, considering the 10
years successful service of the petitioner, though on a provisional basis,
we feel he is entitled to be considered for regularisation under the
norms issued by the Director General of Postal and Telecommunication
Accordingly respondents are directed to consider petitioner’s
regularisation treating his appointment as one made in terms of the
norms that entitle a candidate to be considered for regularisation.
Petitioner should be allowed to continue until a decision is taken by the
respondents as stated above.
W.P.C. is allowed as above.
(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)
Judge.
(BHABANI PRASAD RAY)
Judge.
kk