ORDER
Bharati Ray, Member (J)
1. None appears for the Respondents. The Respondents, however, have filed the counter-reply. Rejoinder is also filed by the Applicant. Heard Mr. T.V.V.S. Murthy, learned Counsel for the Applicant.
2. On going through the material papers filed along with the OA, we find that the applicant was appointed as EDDA/MC, Chinamushidivada BO with effect from 1.7.2003 (Forenoon), vide order dated 5.9.2003. The said order is annexed as Annexure. A-XVI at page 27 to the OA. The applicant was accordingly working in the said post. Soon after five months of his appointment, the applicant was issued an order of termination by the respondents, vide order dated 19.2.2004, under Rule 8(1) and (2) of GDS (Conduct & Employment) Rules, 2001. The text of the order is extracted below:
In pursuance of Rule 8(1) and (2) of Grameen Dak Sevak (Conduct & Employment) Rules 2001, I.K. Girija Sankar Rao, IP, VM(W), Sub-Div., VSP-20, hereby give notice to Sri B.Murali Mohan, GDS DA/MC, Chinamushidivada BO a/w Pendurthi, that his services shall stand terminated with effect from the date of expiry of a period of one month from the date on which this notice is served on or, as the case may be, tendered to him.
Thereafter, the Inspector (Posts), vide undated letter, informed the BPM, Chinamushidivada BO, a/w Pendurthi-531 173, that no reply has been received from the applicant, and therefore, it shall be ordered termination of services of the applicant with immediate effect. A copy of the said letter was sent to the applicant and the same is annexed as Annexure. R-X to the reply. Questioning the order dated 19.2.2004 and the undated letter mentioned above, the applicant has approach this Tribunal for quashing the said orders and for a direction to the respondents to continue the applicant in service or to reinstate him in service.
3. The respondents have filed the counter-reply stating that the appointment of the applicant was made without following the prescribed procedure. They have mentioned that the selection of GDS involves issue of a notification calling for candidates from Employment Exchange and also from open market and then selecting the most meritorious candidate. The said procedure has not been followed by the respondents and when the same was noticed, the applicant was issued with the impugned notice of termination dated:19.2.2004, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure. XVIII at page 29 to the OA, under Rule 8(1) and (2) of Grameen Dak Sevak (Conduct & Employment) Rules 2001. Since no reply was received from the applicant, the applicant has been terminated from service.
4. That being the position, we find that it is a settled position of law that irregular appointments become invalid abinitio and such appointments does not confer any right to the appointee to continue in the said post as per the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi and Ors. .
5. That being the legal position, since the services of the applicant have been terminated by duly issuing a notice under Rule 8(1) and (2) of Grameen Dak Sevak (Conduct & Employment) Rules 2001, we do not find any irregularity in the action of the respondents in terminating the services of the applicant. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this OA and the same is dismissed accordingly with no Order as to costs.