IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY THURSDAY, THE 23RD DECEMBER 2010 / 2ND POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 37518 of 2007(S) -------------------------- OA.129/2005 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY/DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POSTS, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS, NEW DELHI-110 001. 2. THE ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICE, KALPETTA SUB DIVISION, KALPETTA. 3. THE SUB POSTMASTER, KALPETTA NORTH. 4. THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL, KERALA CIRCLE, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDIA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. K.NAZAR, KOOTTUPULICKAL HOUSE, EMILY, KALPETTA, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 2. CLETUS, KALATHIL HOUSE, PALLIKUNNU P.O., KALPETTA, WAYANAD DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.P.SANJAY FOR R1 SRI.A.PARVATHI MENON FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT. P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A. NO.129 OF2005 FILED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT HEREIN BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH, ALONG WITH ANNEXURES. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMET FILED BY THE PETITIONERS. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH DATED 4.6.2007 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, & BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ. -------------------------------------------- W. P.C. No. 37518 of 2007 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Writ Petition is filed challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal directing the petitioners to consider eligibility of the respondent for appointment as GDS Mail Deliverer and if he is found fit to appoint him or otherwise to proceed to make appointment by re-notifying the post. We have heard Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the petitioners and counsel appearing for the respondent. Admittedly respondent is working on a provisional basis in the same post for the last 15 years. He has studied upto 10th standard but failed in the examination. The qualification required is pass in 8th standard and preference will be given to those who passed 10th standard. Respondent apprehending that he will not be considered for appointment as he has failed in 10th standard filed O.A. However, considering the eligibility of the respondent, and having regard to long experience of 15 years the respondent had with the department, the WPC 37518/2007 2 Tribunal directed the petitioners to consider him for appointment and proceed to renotify the post only if the respondent is found ineligible. Assistant Solicitor General contended that respondent was not appointed by following any regular procedure for appointment, and he was taken only on ad hoc basis. However respondent's case is that he came as a substitute and he was continuously engaged for 15 years. We find force in this contention because a person who has basic qualification having been engaged for 15 years on regular basis though under temporary employment, should have preference over other candidates while making regular recruitment. In this context only the Tribunal felt that respondent's eligibility has to be first considered and if so to appoint him or otherwise Tribunal has left freedom to the petitioners to make appointment by notifying the post. We do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. Consequently WPC is dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (BHABANI PRASAD RAY) Judge. kk WPC 37518/2007 3 kk