Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Naresh Kumar Son Of Babu Ram vs Union Of India on 7 May, 2014
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH, CHANDIGARH. O.A.No.1224/PB/2013 Date of Decision : 07.05.2014 CORAM: HONBLE MRS. RAJWANT SANDHU, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER HONBLE DR. BRAHM A. AGRAWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER Naresh Kumar son of Babu Ram, R/o V.P.O. Karari, via Datarpur, Tehsil Mukerian District Hoshiarpur. Applicant Versus 1. Union of India, through its Secretary-cum-Director General, Department of Post, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi. 2. The Chief Post Master General, Punjab Circle, Chandigarh. 3. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Hoshiarpur Division, Hoshiarpur. 4. Sub Divisional Inspector, Department of Posts, Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur. . Respondents Present: Mr. S.K.Rattan, counsel for the applicant Mr. A.L.Vohra, counsel for the respondents O R D E R (Oral)
BY HONBLE MRS. RAJWANT SANDHU, MEMBER (A)
1. This Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:-
8 (a) That the impugned letter dated 07.04.2010 (Annexure A-8) may be quashed due to which applicant is not adjusted against the vacant post of EDBPM (Extra Departmental Branch Post Master) on the ground that as per report of the Sub Division Inspector, Dasuya Sub Division the posts of GDSMD as Safdarpur B.O. and Dhaula Khera B.O was offered to you, but you refused to accept the said post verbally which is not sustainable on the facts and circumstances / grounds mentioned in the present application as the applicant is not offered any such appointment and applicant never refused to work at any given place.
(b) Direct the respondents to adjust the applicant for the post of EDBPM as the number of vacancies are lying vacant as admitted by the respondents as the applicant has worked with the respondents for around 8 years and 4 months continuously.
2. Litigation in this matter has been going on since 1999 and it is unnecessary to record the history of the case. The present OA stems from an advertisement dated 05.10.2004 issued by way of publicity in Village Karari for fresh selection to the post of EDBPM. The applicant filed OA No.1175/PB/2004 impugning the letter dated 05.10.2004 calling for fresh applications and the same was dismissed vide order dated 13.02.2007. The operative part of the order dated 13.02.2007 reads as follows:-
7. The examination of this judgment gives a clear lie to the claim of the applicant that his appointment was not touched. In our opinion his appointment had been quashed by the order at Annexure A-3 with directions to hold fresh selection. In Annexure A-5, the Bench reiterated that the appointment of present applicant Naresh Kumar is not correct and not in accordance with the law. If in these circumstances, the respondents had ultimately decided to honour the mandamus of the judgment at Annexure A-3 and A-5, no fault can be found with the same. The present applicant, apparently with the connivance of respondents or someone in that department succeeded in not only usurping but in continuing on the said post since 1999 even though his appointment was clearly quashed and set aside in Annexure A-3 and declared illegal in Annexure A-5. Aggrieved by this order, the applicant filed CWP No.4389-CAT of 2007 before the jurisdictional High Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 22.03.2007. The applicants services were terminated vide order dated 16.04.2007 and he was relieved w.e.f. 17.04.2007.
3. Averment has been made in the OA that the applicant made representations from 02.12.2008 onwards stating that as a number of vacancies were available against the post of EDBPM, he should be adjusted against one of these posts. In response to his representation, Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Hoshiarpur i.e. respondent no.3 issued letter dated 13.08.2009 to S.D.I. Dasuya to adjust the applicant against the available vacant post (Annexure A-6). On the same date, the applicant requested for his adjustment at Village Narangpur and again requested SSPO, Hoshiarpur vide his application dated 12.10.2009 for his adjustment. Representation in this regard continued and vide impugned letter dated 07.04.2010 (Annexure A-8), he was informed that as per report of the Sub Division Inspector, Dasuya, Sub Division the posts of GDSMD as Safdarpur B.O and Dhaula Khera B.O was offered to you, but you refused to accept the said post verbally. It is further stated that the applicant continued to approach the respondents for his appointment and filed appeal dated 26.03.2012 (Annexure A-9) but no response had been received.
4. In the grounds for relief, it has been stated that the respondent had worked as EDBPM for around 8 years and 4 months, had sufficient experience in the job and since posts were lying vacant with the respondents, he could be adjusted as such. Hence this OA.
5. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that the applicants claim for re-deployment as EDBPM on the basis of his long period of service of about 8 years and 4 months which is not admissible under the rules / instructions. Since applicants appointment was quashed twice and subsequently terminated, he could not be considered as an approved candidate for registration under the surplus pool for redeployment against existing vacancies. His case was considered by the competent authority and he was informed vide respondent no.3s letter dated 29.05.2012 (Annexure R-4) that his claim for adjustment could not be entertained as his appointment was initially cancelled by the Tribunal. His appeal against order dated 29.05.2012 was also rejected vide respondent no.2s letter dated 28.02.2013 (Annexure R-5). Hence the OA is without any merit and is liable to be dismissed.
6. In the course of the hearing today, learned counsel for the applicant narrated the history of the claim of the applicant at length and pressed that since the applicant had worked as EDBPM for over 8 years, he should be considered for adjustment against available vacant post.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents drew attention to the order dated 13.02.2007 in OA No.1175/PB/2004 wherein it had been recorded that the appointment of the applicant Sh. Naresh Kumar was not in accordance with the law. He stated that the applicant had been informed vide letter dated 29.05.2012 (Annexure R-4) that his claim had been considered and since his appointment had been initially cancelled by the C.A.T. Chandigarh Bench in OA No.1175/PB/2004, his claim could not be entertained by the Department. Learned counsel also cited Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. Vs. K. Brahmanandam & Ors. (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 256, wherein it had been held as follows:-
Appointment-Illegal and Irregular appointment Held, appointment made in violation of mandatory provisions is illegal and therefore void Illegality cannot be ratified but irregularity can be.
8. We have carefully considered the matter and it is evident from the material on record that the appointment of the applicant as EDBPM had been quashed as not being in accordance with the law. Hence the claim of the applicant for further adjustment as EDBPM even keeping in view the fact that he had worked in this post for over 8 years is not maintainable. The present OA is rejected. No costs.
(DR. BRAHM A. AGRAWAL) (RAJWANT SANDHU)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER.
Place: Chandigarh
Dated: 07.05.2014
sv:
??
??
??
??
5
(OA.No.1224/PB/2013 titled (NARESH KUMAR VS. UOI & ORS.)