2002 Union of India rep. by1. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices v. Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench

In the High Court of Judicature at MadrasDated: 31.7.2007Coram:The Honourable Mr.Justice F.M.Ibrahim KalifullaandThe Honourable Mr.Justice S.TamilvananW.P.No.21130 of 2002& W.P.M.P.No.29221 of 2002Union of India rep. by1. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Virudhunagar Division, Virudhunagar 626 001.2. The Asst. Superintendent of Post Offices, Rajapalayam Sub-Division, Rajapalayam-626 117. .. Petitioners vs.1. Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, rep. by the Registrar, High Court Campus, Chennai-104.2. A.Muniyandi3. A.Sembulingam .. RespondentsWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the proceedingsof the first respondent dated 4.5.2001 made in O.A.No.1062 of 2000 andquash the same. For petitioners : Mr.V.Balasubramanian, Standing Counsel for Central Government For respondents 2 and 3 : No appearanceORDER(The Order of the Court was made by F.M.Ibrahim Kalifulla,J)Though the respondents 2 and 3 were duly served, they have not chosento appear either in person or through counsel. We therefore proceeded todecide the Writ Petition on merits, upon hearing the learned StandingCounsel appearing for the petitioners. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. The Postal Department is the petitioner herein. The challenge inthis Writ Petition is to the order of the Central Administrative Tribunalpassed in O.A.No.1062 of 2000, dated 4.5.2001. 3. The issue relates to the validity of the appointment made to thepost of Extra-Departmental Sub-Postmaster (i.e. for short, EDSPM) forKrishnapuram EDSO, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District, in a temporaryvacancy.4. One Thiru.V.Muthaiah was a permanent EDSPM of Krishnapuram EDSO. Hewas proceeded against by way of disciplinary action for having committedfraud in RD Accounts and he was placed under off-duty with effect from22.1.1999. Therefore, a temporary vacancy arose in the said post. Beforegoing in for a recruitment to fill up the temporary vacancy, the secondrespondent was nominated for appointment to the said post on provisionalbasis with effect from 22.1.1999. Thereafter, applications were called foron 11.6.1999 and one Thiru.R.Ramkumar got selected and appointed, by orderdated 30.9.1999. However, since there were petitions against the selectionof Thiru.R.Ramkumar, his appointment was cancelled and the secondrespondent was again provisionally appointed with effect from 24.4.2000.Thereafter, the petitioners are stated to have called for applicationsfrom the Employment Exchange and since there was no sponsorship made bythe Employment Exchange, they went in for a regular selection to fill upthe temporary vacancy. The petitioners would claim that pursuant to theirNotification, 45 candidates filed applications including the secondrespondent herein, of whom, only 40 candidates attended for verificationof the documents and in that selection, the third respondent got selectedon merits, as he had secured more marks in SSLC than the second respondentherein. In other words, the third respondent was found more meritoriousthan the second respondent to hold the temporary vacancy which arose dueto off-duty ordered against the permanent holder of the post, namelyThiru.V.Muthaiah. The third respondent was appointed to the said post ontemporary vacancy, by order of appointment dated 11.9.2000.5. Challenging the said appointment of the third respondent, thesecond respondent herein preferred Original Application No.1062 of 2000before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The second respondent hereincontended that himself, having been appointed on provisional basis to thepost of EDSPM of Krishnapuram EDSO and having allowed him to function forquite some time, the selection and appointment of the third respondentherein ought not to have been made.6. The said Original Application was resisted by the petitioners bycontending that even for filling up of the post based on temporaryvacancy, the procedure prescribed for regular appointment has to befollowed, that such a procedure was duly followed in the case of fillingup of the temporary vacancy of EDSPM, Krishnapuram EDSO in which the thirdrespondent was found more meritorious by virtue of higher marks secured by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ him in the SSLC than the second respondent herein as well as the thirdrespondent satisfying the qualification of possessing the landed property.7. The Tribunal however proceeded on the footing that one provisionalappointment cannot be replaced by another provisional appointment. On thatsole ground, it had interfered with the selection and appointment of thethird respondent herein.8. Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioners.9. On a perusal of the Original Application preferred by the secondrespondent herein and the reply affidavit filed before the Tribunal by thepetitioners herein, we find that the grievance of the second respondentwas not merely on the ground that one provisional appointment was soughtto be replaced by another provisional appointment. On the other hand, thegrounds raised in the Original Application filed before the Tribunaldisclose that the second respondent was very much aware of the fact thatthe appointment of the third respondent to the post of EDSPM, KrishnapuramEDSO, came to be made by way of regular selection to that post, where themerits and demerits of several applicants including the second respondentherein, who have applied for the post were considered, in which the thirdrespondent herein was found to be a successful candidate possessing betterqualification in all respects than all the other candidates including thesecond respondent herein. In the Original Application, the secondrespondent/applicant never contended that he was better qualified than thethird respondent. On the other hand, it is on record that in the marksscored in the SSLC Examination, as between the second respondent and thethird respondent, the marks scored by the third respondent was far highthan the second respondent herein. That apart, the reply affidavit of thepetitioners filed before the Tribunal discloses that the third respondentalso satisfied the other qualification of possessing the landed property,which persuaded the petitioners to select the third respondent for beingappointed to the post of EDSPM, Krishnapuram EDSO to fill up the temporaryvacancy created due to the off-duty of the permanent incumbentThiru.V.Muthaiah. 10. In such circumstances, the conclusion of the Tribunal ininterfering with the selection and appointment of the third respondent onthe ground that the provisional appointment of the second respondentcannot be replaced by another provisional appointment of the thirdrespondent, is not borne out by records, and therefore, the saidconclusion in the impugned order of the Tribunal, cannot be sustained. Wereiterate that the appointment of the third respondent, dated 11.9.2000,was made as per the relevant Rules relating to the filling up of the postof EDSPM on temporary vacancy and when his appointment was based onmerits, the same ought not have been interfered with by the Tribunal. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

11. The order impugned in this Writ Petition is therefore set aside.The Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs. W.P.M.P. is closed. Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.csCopy to1. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Virudhunagar Division, Virudhunagar 626 001.2. The Asst. Superintendent of Post Offices, Rajapalayam Sub-Division, Rajapalayam-626 117. 3. Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, rep. by the Registrar, High Court Campus, Chennai-104.+ 1 CC To Mr. V.Balasubramanian Associates, SR NO.47303W.P.No.21130 of 2002rsn[co]gp/17.8.