IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated:-24-11-2005 Coram:- The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.K. KRISHNAN Writ Petition Nos. 5026 of 2003, 42927 of 2002, 22219, 22220, 27794, 30376, 36055, 36056 of 2003, 466, 882, 2754, 6122, 11502, 23442, 23833, 27216, 27273, 27275, 27617, 27618, 27619, 27789, 27844, 27944, 30970, 30997, 31702, 33519, 33764, 35440, 36084, 36384, 37948 of 2004, 3184, 18645, 24266 of 2005; and W.P.M.P.Nos. 63241 of 2002, 34016 of 2003, 35528, 42706, 43713 of 2004, 3588, 20187, 26491 of 2005 and W.V.M.P.Nos. 89 and 90 of 2004. W.P.No. 5026 of 2003 Union of India, represented by the Superintendent of Post Offices (West), West Division, Sooramangalam, Salem District. .. Petitioner. Vs. 1. A. Suguna, 2. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench. .. Respondents. WP.42927/2002 Union of India represented by 1. The Chief Post-Master General T.N.Circle, Chennai-2. 2. The Post Master General Madurai 625 002. 3. Senior Superindentent of Post Offices Kovilpatti Division, Kovilpatti 628 501 4. The Assistant Superindentent of Post Offices, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ West Sub Division, Kovilpatti 625 501. .. Petitioners -Vs- 1.P.Shanmughavelu 2.The Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal, High Court Buildings, Chennai-104. ..Respondents WP.22219/2003 and 22220/2003 1. The Union of India represented by the Senior Superintendent of Postal, Pondicherry Division, Pondicherry-1. 2. The Post Master HSG-1, Villupuram HPO Villupuram-605 602 ..Petitioners -Vs- 1. The Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal Chennai-104. 2. P.Balasubramanian ..Respondents WP.27794 of 2003 Union of India rep by Inspector of Posts Kallakurichi East Sub Division Kallakurichi 606 202 ..Petitioner -Vs- 1. The Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal High Court Buildings, Chennai-104 2. R.Arul ..Respondents WP.30376/2003 1. Union of India rep.by The Post Master General https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Southern Region Tamil Nadu Circle Madurai 625 002 2. The Superintendent of Post Offices Theni Division, Theni 625 531. ..Petitioners -vs- 1. K.Vasuki 2. The Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal Madras Bench ..Respondents WP.36055 and 36056 of 2003 1. Union of India rep by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Communications, New Delhi 110 001. 2. The Director General of Posts New Delhi 3. The Chief Postmaster General TamilNadu Circle Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002. 4. The Post Master General South Zone, Madurai 625 002. 5. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Madurai Division, Madurai 625 002. 6. The Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Melur Sub Division, Melur 625 106. ..Petitioners in both Wps -Vs- 1. The Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal Chennai Bench, Chennai 600 104. ..R1 in both Wps 2. M.Muthupandi ..R2 in WP 36055/03 3. P.Thiruvarasu ..R2 in WP 36056/03 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ WP.466 of 2004 1. Union of India rep.by the Chief Post Master General Tamil Nadu Circle, Chennai 600 002 2. The Chief Post Master General Tamil Nadu Circle, Chennai 600 002. ..Petitioners -Vs- 1. Shri M.Sakthivel Murugan 2. The Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal, High Court Campus, Chennai 600 104. ..Respondents WP.882/2004 Union of India rep.by the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Vridhachalam Division, Vridhachalam 606 001. ..Petitioner -Vs- 1. S.Ravisankar 2. The Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai-104. ..Respondents WP.2754/2004 1. Union of India rep.by the chief Post Master General Anna Salai, Chennai-2 2. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Thiruchirappalli Division Thiruchirappalli 620 001 ..Petitioners -Vs- 1. The Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal High Court Campus, Chennai 600 104 2. R.Vasanthi ..Respondents WP.6122 of 2004 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1. Union of India rep.by Post Master General TamilNadu Circle, Chennai 600 002 2. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices Pondicherry Division, Pondicherry 605 001 3. The Asst. Superintendent of Post Offices Villupuram Sub Division, Villupuram 605 602 ..Petitioners -Vs- 1. A.Kannan 2. The Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal Madras Bench, City Civil Court Buildings, Chennai 600 104. ..Respondents WP.11502/2004 1. Union of India rep.by Chief Post Master General TamilNadu Circle, Chennai 600 002 2. The Post Master General Southern Region(TamilNadu), Madurai 625 002 3. The Senior Superintendent of Post offices Madurai Division, Madurai 625 002. ..petitioners -Vs- 1.The Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal Madras Bench, Chennai 600 104. 2.S.Kathiresan 3.K.Ammavasai 4.V.Rajapandi 5.N.Ravi 6.P.Shanmugavel 7.K.M.Jayaraman 8.R.Pandiselvi 9.R.Murugesan 10.P.Sonaimuthu 11.K.Muthulakshmi https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 12.V.Velu 13.M.Prabhu 14.V.Vinayagam 15.V.Subbulakshmi 16.A.Jayaraman 17.G.Sethuraman 18.C.Kanagaraj 19.P.Chinniyan 20.P.Balakrishnan 21.T.Kanagaraj 22.Dharma Kumar 23.P.Rathinam ..Respondents WP.23442/2004 1.Union of India rep.by the Postmaster General, Western Region Coimbatore 641 002 2.Superintendent of Post Offices Tirupur Division, Tirupur 641 601 3.Assistant Superintendent of Posts Tirupur South Sub Division, Tirupur 641 601 4.Sub Divisional Inspector, Tirupur South, Sub Division, Tirupur 641 601. ..Petitioners -Vs- 1. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal Madras Bench, Chennai 104. 2. T.Sukumar ..Respondents WP.23833/2004 1. Union of India rep.by Postmaster General TamilNadu Circle, Chennai-2. 2. Superintendent of Post Offices Arakkonam Division, Arakkonam 631 001 3. Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices Arakkonam Sub Division, Arakkonam 631 001 ..Petitioners https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ -Vs- 1. The Central Administrative Tribunal The Registrar, City Civil Court Buildings Madras 600 104. 2. R.Sivaprakasam 3. A.R.Ramesh ..Respondents WP.27216/2004 1. Union of India rep.by Postmaster General TamilNadu Circle, Chennai-2. 2. The Post Master General Western Region, Coimbatore 641 002 3. The Superintendent of Post Offices Pollachi Division, Pollachi 642 601 ..Petitioners -Vs- 1. The Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal Chennai Bench, Chennai. 2. M.Subramanian ..Respondents WP.27273/2004 Union of India represented by the Superintendent of Post Offices Thiruvannamalai Division Thiruvannamalai-606 601 ..Petitioners -Vs- 1. The Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal Chennai Bench, Chennai 2. B.Ravichandran ..Respondents WP.27275/2004 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1. Union of India represented by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Thiruvannamalai Division, Thiruvannamalai 606 601. 2. The Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Arni Sub Division, Arni-632 301. ..Petitioners -Vs- 1. The Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal Chennai Bench, Chennai. 2. R.Stalin ..Respondents WP.27617/2004 Union of India rep.by Senior Superintendent of post Offices, Kanyakumari Division, Nagercoil 629 001 ..Petitioner -Vs- 1. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal Madras Bench, Chennai 600 104. 2. S.Vinodha ..Respondents WP.27618/2004 Union of India rep.by Sr.Superintendent of Post Offices, Thirunelveli Division, Thirunelveli 627 002 ..Petitioner -Vs- 1. The Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras bench, Chennai 600 104 2. N.Sivanagalingam ..Respondents WP.27619/2004 Union of India rep.by Chief Postmaster General TamilNadu Circle, Chennai-2. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The Superintendent of Post Officer Chennai City (South Division) T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017. ..Petitioners -Vs- 1. The Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal Madras Bench, Chennai 600 104 2. J.Manoharan ..Respondents WP.27789/2004 1. The Chief Postmaster General TamilNadu Circle, Chennai 600 002 2. The Postmaster General Tamilnadu City Region, Chennai 600 002 3. The Superintendent of Post offices Thiruvannamalai Division, Thiruvannamalai 606 601 ..Petitioners -Vs- 1. The Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal Chennai Bench, Chennai. 2. K.S.M.Hayat Basha ..Respondents WP.27844/2004 1. The Chief Postmaster General TamilNadu Circle, Chennai 600 002 2. The Superintendent of Post Officer Thiruvannamalai Division, Thiruvannamalai 606 601 3. The Sub Divisional Inspector(p) Polur Sub Division, Polur. ..Petitioners -Vs- 1. The Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal Chennai Bench, Chennai 2. B.Babu ..Respondents https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ WP.27944/2004 1.Union of India rep.by the Chief Postmaster General, TamilNadu Circle, Chennai 600 002. 2.The Senior Superintendent of Post offices Virudhachalam Division, Virudhachalam 606 001 3.The Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices Kallakuruchi Sub Division, Kallakuruchi 606 202 ..Petitioners -Vs- 1. The Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, Chennai. 2. K.Ramasamy ..Respondents WP 30970/2004 1. Union of India rep.by its Senior Superintendent of Post officer Pondicherry Division, Pondicherry 605 001 2. The Postmaster, HSG-1, Villupuram HPO, Villupuram 605 602 ..Petitioners -Vs- 1. The Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal Madras Bench, Chennai 600 104 2. P.Balasubramanian 3. K.Elumalai ..Respondents WP.30997/2004 1.Union of India rep.by the Postmaster General,, Southern Region, Coimbatore 641 002. 2. Superintendent of Post Offices Tirupattur Division, Tirupattur 635 601. ..Petitioners https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ -Vs- 1. V.Rajasekaran 2. The Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Chennai 600 104. ..Respondents WP.31702/2004 1. Union of India rep.by the Chief Post Master General TamilNadu Circle, Chennai 600 002. 2. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Kanyakumari Division, Nagercoil 629 001 3. The Sub Divisional Inspector of Post Offices Kuzhithurai Sub Division, Kuzhithurai 629 151. -Vs- 1. Lovely C.Krishna 2. The Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal Madras bench, Madras. WP No.33519/04 1. The Union of India rep.by the Chief Postmaster General, TamilNadu Circle, Chennai. 2.The Senior Superintendent RMS T.Division, Trichy.1 3.The Sub Record Officer Chengalpattu RMS, Chengalpattu. ..Petitioners -Vs- 1. The Central Administrative Tribunal by Registrar, Chennai 600 104 2. P.Srinivasan, No.44,31st M.P.C.Street, G.K.M.Colony, Chennai-600 082 ..Respondents https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ WP 33764/04 1. Union of India rep.by the Superintendent of Post Officer, Thiruvannamalai Division, Thiruvannamalai 606 601 ..Petitioner -VS- 1. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench,Chennai. 2. M.Venkatesan, S/o.Murugan, Agarakorukottri Village, Tellar Post, Vandavasi Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District. ..Respondents WP No.35440/04 1. Union of India rep.by., senior Superinentdent of Post Offices, Salem East Division, Salem-636 001. 2.Sub-Divisional Inspector-Post, Attur SubDivision, Attur-636 102. Salam Dist. ..Petitioners -VS- 1.Ramesh, 43/1 Grain Bazaar, Pudupet 636 141, Attur Taluk, Salem District. 2.S.Syed Mohideen,S/O Syed Kareem, No.43, Kamatchi Amal Koil Street, Pudupet, Attur Taluk, Salem District. 3.The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench. ..Respondents WP No.36084/04 1.Union of India rep.by The Chief Postmaster General Tamilnadu Cirecle, Chennai – 600 002. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Tiruvannamalai Division, Tiruvannamalai-606 601. 3.The Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Arni Sub Division, Tiruvannamalai District. ..Respondents -VS- 1.The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, Chennai. 2.N.Murali, S/O K.NavaneethaKrishnan, S.V.Vanan Post, Kunathur Via,Tiruvannamalai District. ..Respondents WP 36384/04 1.Union of India, rep.by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of communication, Department of Posts, NewDelhi-110 001. 2.Director of Postal Services, Coimbatore. 3.The Superintendent of Post Offices, Pollachi Division, Pollachi 642 001. 4.Sub Divisional Inspector of Post Offices Udumalpet-642 126. ..Petitioners -VS- 1.The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, Chennai. 2.T.Palanisamy,s/O Thangamuthu, EDDA,Munduvelampatti, (now GDSMD A/W Pulavadi so Udumalpet Taluk, coimbatore) ..Respondents WP.37948/04 1.Union of India,rep.by Chief Postmaster General, Tamilnadu Circle,Annasalai, Chennai 600 002. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.Senior superintendent of Post Offices, Madurai Division, Madurai – 625 002. 3.subDivisional Inspector(Postal) Sholavandan Sub Division, Vadipatti – 625 218. ..Petitioners -VS- 1.The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench,Chennai – 600 104. 2.A.Gurunathan, S/O P.Ammavasai, No.16 Kattunayakkan 1st Street, sathiamoorthy Nagar, Samayanallur -625 402. Madurai District. ..Respondents WP.3184/05 1. The superintnedent of Post Offices Tiruvannamalai Division, Tiruvannamalai-606 601. 2. The Chief Postmaster General, Tamilnadu Circle, Chennai-600 002. ..Petitioners -Vs- 1.The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, Chennai. 2. V.Latha,W/O Udayakumar working as EDBPM, Kodanagar Branch Office, Tiruvetipuram Culckry so, Cheyyar Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District. Residing at 0.45.H, New Street Extn., Cheyyar Taluk,Tiruvetipuram – 604 407. ..Respondents WP 18645/05 1.The Union of India rep.by Superintendent of Post Offices, Dharmapuri Division, Dharmapuri. ..Petitioner -VS- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1. R.Santhmurthy, 1/278, Baisuhalli Post and Village, Perianahalli via, Dharmapuri Dist. 635 205. 2. Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai – 600 104. ..Respondents WP.24266/05 1. Union of India rep.by Director of Postal Services, Coimbatore Region(WR) No.6/0 Post Master General, Coimbatore. 641 002. 2.Superintendent of Post Offices, Dharmapuri Division, Dharmapuri-636 701. 3.Sub Divisional Inspector(Postal) Harur Sub Division, Harur-636 903. ..Petitioners -VS- 1.The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench Chennai. 2.Shri K.Nathigan,S/O Kandasamy, Sandappatti, Morappur, Harur Taluk, Dharmapuri – 635 305. ..Respondents Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for records pertaining to O.A.No. 216 of 2002 on the file of Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench/2nd respondent herein, dated 20-11-2002 and to quash the said order. 1. Calling for the resords of the proceedings of the 2nd respondent made in O.A.No.844/01 vide its Order dated 3.4.2002 and quash the same (WP.42927/02) 2.Calling for the resords in O.A.918 of 2002 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai(WP.22219/2003) 3.Calling for the resords in O.A.974 of 2002 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai(WP.22220/2003) 4.Calling for the resords in O.A.1100 of 2002 dated 20.6.2003 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same (WP 27794/2003) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5.Calling for the resords relating to the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench passed in OA.No1137/2002 dated 8.8.2003 and quash the same.(WP.30376/03) 6.Calling for the entire resords pertaining to the order made in OA No.28 and 29 of 2003 dated 10.7.03 on the file of the first respondent the Central Administrative Tribunal Madras Bench and to quash the same (WPs.36055 & 36056/03) 7.Calling for the records of the impugned order in O.A.No.246/2002 dated 13.11.2002 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal Madras Bench ,quash the same (WP.466/04) 8.Calling for the records in O.A.328/2003 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal and quash the Order dated 25.9.2003. 9.Calling for the records of the first respondent made in O.A.367/2003 dated 8.8.2003 on the file of the CAT Madras Bench and to quash the same(WP.2754/04) 10.Calling for the records relating to Order dated 22.10.03 made in O.A.No.430/03 passed the CAT, Madras Bench and quash the same (WP.6122/04) 11.Calling for the entire records pertaining to the order made in O.A.No.1148 of 2002 dated 25.9.03 on the file of the first respondent the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench and to quash the same(WP.11502/04) 12. Calling for the records pertaining to the order made in O.A.436 of 2003 dated 5.3.2004 on the file of the first respondent the central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench and to quash the same (WP.23442/04) 13.Calling for the records relating to the order dated 8.4.2004 passed in O.A.888 of 2003 on the file of the CAT Chennai, the first respondent herein and to quash the same(WP.23833/04) 14.Calling for the records pertaining to O.A.No786/03 on the file of the first respondent Tribunal and to quash the order dated 20.4.2004. (WP.27216/04) 15.Calling for the records pertaining to O.A.No.683/03 on the file of the first respondent Tribunal and to quash the order dated 16.4.04 passed by the Tribunal (WP.27273/04) 16.Calling for the records pertaining to O.A.No.801/2003 on the file of the first respondent Tribunal and to quash the order dated 16.4.2004 passed by the Tribunal (WP.27275/04) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 17.calling for the records of the first respondent relating to the order made in O.A.No.504/03 dated 17.6.2004 quash the same (WP.27617/04) 18.calling for the recrds relating to the order of the first respondent Tribunal passed in O.A.889/03 dated 28.4.2004 and quash the same (WP.27618/04) 19.Calling for the records relating to the order of the first respondent passed in O.A.No.479/04 dated 1.6.2004 and to quash the same(WP.27619/04) 20.Calling for the records pertaining to O.A.No.1008/2003 on the file of the first respondent Tribunal and to quash the order dated 16.6.04 passed by the Tribunal(WP.27789/04) 21.Calling for the records pertaining to O.A.No.849/2003 on the file of the first respondent Tribunal and to quash the order dated 19.3.2004 passed by the Tribunal(WP.27844/04) 22.Calling for the records pertaining to O.A.No.1165/03 on the file of the first respondent Tribunal and to quash tot Order dated 1.7.2004 passed by the tribunal (WP.27944/04) 23.Calling for the records of the first respondent relating to the order made in OA.No.480 of 2003 dated 30.4.2004 quash the same (WP.30970/04) 24. Calling for the records of the 2nd respondent Tribunal passed in O.A.No.926/03, dated 29.6.04 and to quash tht same (WP.30997/04) 25.Calling for the records pertaining to O.A.392/2004 on the file of the 2nd respondent and to quash the order dated 5/8/04 passed by the Tribunal (WP.31702/04) 26.Calling for the records relating to the order dated 8.7.04 made in O.A.No322/04 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal (WP.33519/04) 27.Calling for the records pertaining to O.A.No.467/03 on the file of the 1st respondent Tribunal and to quash the order dated 30.3.04 passed by the Tribubal in O.A.No.467/03 (WP.33764/04) 28.Calling for the records relating to the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench in O.A.No.962/03 dated 13.9.04 (WP.35440/04) 29.Calling for the records pertaining to O.A.No.1135/03 on the file of the 1st respondent Tribunal and to quash the Order datd 16.7.04 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ passed by the Tribunal(WP.36084/04) 30.Calling for the records pertaining to O.A.No.1058/03 on the file of the 1st respondent Tribunal and to quash the order dated 9.8.04 passed by the Tribunal(WP.36384/04) 31.To call for the entire records pertaining to the orders made in O.A.No.838/03 dated 1.7.04 on the file of the 1st respondent, the Central Administrative Tribunal Madras Bench(WP.No.37948/04) 32.Calling for the records pertaining to O.A.No.163/04 on the file of the 1st respondent Tribunal and to quash the order dated 13.9.04 passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.163/04(WP.3184/05) 33.To call for records and quash the order passed in O.A.No.711/04 dated 11.3.05 by the Central administrative Tribunal(WP.18645/05) 34.Calling for records inn O.A.No.939/04 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench(WP.24266/05) Mr.V.T.Gopalan, Additional Solicitor General, assisted by Mr. R. Santhanam, Senior Central Govt., Standing counsel in W.P.Nos. 5026/2003, 30376/2003, 27273, 27275, 27789, 27844/2004, 33764, 36084, 27276, 36384/2004, 3184/2005. Mr. S. Muthusamy:-For petitioner in W.P.Nos. 466 and 2754/2004. Mr. S. Krishnaswamy:- For petitioner in W.P.No. 882/2004 and 42927/2002. Mr. V. Vaithiyalingam:-For petitioner in W.P.No. 6122/2004. Mr. V. Veeraraghavan, Senior Central Government Standing counsel:- For petitioner in W.P.No. 30997 of 2004. Mr. S. Gopinathan:- For petitioner in W.P.No. 31702/2004. Mr. V.T. Gopalan, Addl. Solicitor General for Mr. M.T. Arunan, Addl. Central Govt., Standing counsel for W.P.Nos. 33519/2004, 23833/2004 and 35440/2004. Mr. K. Ravichandrababu, Addl. Central Govt., Standing counsel for petitioner in W.P.Nos.27617, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 27619, 23442 and 30970/2004. Mr. A.S. Balaji, Addl. Central Govt.,Standing counsel for petitioner in W.P.Nos. 22219/2003, 22220/2003, and 27794/2003. Mr. S. Manikumar, Senior Central Govt., Standing counsel for petitioner in W.P.Nos. 36055, 36056 of 2003 and 11502/2004. Mr. V.M.G. Ramakkannan for petitioner in W.P.No. 24260/2005. Mr. T. Mathi for petitioner in W.P.No. 18645/2005. Mr. C. Selvaraju, Senior counsel for Mr. S. Mani:- For 1st Respondent in W.P.No. 35440/2004. Mr. M. Radhakrishnan for (1) Mr. R. Singaravelan:- For 1st Respondent in W.P.No. 5026/2003; for (2) Mr. S. Ramaswamy Rajarajan:- For 1st Respon dent in W.P.No. 466/2004 and 27844/2004; for (3) Mr. S.N. Ravichandran:-For 1st Respondent in W.P.Nos.6122/2004, 33519/2004, 22219, 22220/2003, 30970/2004. Mr. R. Malaichamy:- For 1st respondent in W.P.Nos. 30376/2003, 882/2004, 30997/2004, 42927/2002, 27794/2003, 24266/2005 and 18645/2005,33764/2004. Mr. M. Radhakrishnan:- For 2nd respondent in W.P.Nos. 27273 and 27275/2004. Mr. R. Karkthikeyan:- For 1st respondent in W.P. No. 31702/2004. Mr. S.M. Subrmanian:- For 2nd respondent in W.P.Nos. 36084/2004, 36055, 36056/2003. Mr. L. Chandrakumar:- For 2nd respondent in W.P.No. 27619/2004. Mr. K.V. Subramanian:-For 2nd respondent in W.P.Nos. 27617, 27618/2004. Mr. D. Balasundaram:- For 2nd Respondent in W.P.No. 23833/2004. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Mr. K.M. Ramesh:- For 2nd respondent in W.P.No. 23442/2004. Mr. M.S. Velusamy:- For 2nd respondent in W.P.No. 3184/2005. COMMON ORDER (Order of Court was made by P. SATHASIVAM, J.,) Since the issue raised in all the Writ Petitions is common, they are being disposed of by the following common Order. Aggrieved by the individual orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, directing the respondents therein to include the applicants in the Dovetailed list and consider their case, Postal Department has filed the above Writ Petitions. 2. For convenience, we shall refer the case of the parties as stated in Writ Petition No. 5026 of 2003. According to the petitioner-Superintendent of Post Offices, Salem West Division, Salem, the post of Branch Postmaster, Kattanachampatti Branch Office in account with the Rasipuram Sub Post Office fell vacant on 4-3-98. Till a regular incumbent is selected and posted, the first respondent-A. Suguna was appointed purely on temporary basis for a period from 4-3-98 to 3-5-98, and it was subsequently extended from 4-5-98 to 15-11-98. The said appointment was made with a specific condition that she would be terminated when regular appointment is made and she shall not have any claim to appoint to any post. 3. It is further stated that the vacancy for the post of Branch Postmaster, Kattanachampatti was notified and selection was done on 20-9-98. One A. Saraswathi who had secured highest marks in the 10th Standard was selected and appointed with effect from 16-11- 98. The first respondent also applied for the post, but was not considered as she did not fulfil the eligibility conditions. Further, since the other applicant-A. Saraswathi was selected and appointed by following due process, the temporary appointment given to the 1st respondent was terminated on 16-11-98. The first respondent filed O.A.Nos. 973/98 and 1032/98 challenging the selection of A. Saraswathi for the said post. The Tribunal by order dated 16-9-99, dismissed both the Original Applications with an observation that the applicant/first respondent cannot claim regularisation based on her temporary service. Therefore, she filed another Original Application, viz., O.A.No.978/2001 seeking for a direction to include her name in the dovetailed list based on her temporary service from 4-3-98 to 16- 11-98. The said O.A. was disposed of by the Tribunal with direction to the respondent therein to consider the request of the applicants/1st respondent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. It is the further case of the petitioner that as per letter No. 41-286/87-PE II dated 14-12-87 of the Director General of Post, New Delhi, provisional appointments which are expected to continue for a long period should be made observing the due formalities of selection. The persons having worked as ED Agents in substitute capacity or provisional basis cannot claim the benefit or regularisation on the ground that they have completed 240 days of service. The Chief Postmaster General, Tamil Nadu Circle in his instruction No.REP/84-73/93 dated 23-12-93, has instructed that hereafter substitutes are not engaged in ED vacancies for long periods indefinitely. In case of prolonged leave vacancies, a provisional appointment should be made through the Employment Exchange after observing the due process. The said instruction also states that the dovetailed list should be prepared by each Division showing the names of the candidates, their status, date of initial engagement and date of birth etc., at the Regional Office level and Circle Office. The first respondent who worked as Branch Postmaster from 4-3-98 to 16-11-98 on an arrangement made without any due process of selection pending regular appointment is not eligible to be considered to include her name in the dovetailed list. The temporary and adhoc appointment of the first respondent cannot be treated as provisional appointment and hence her request was examined and considered keeping in view, the departmental rules and instructions and found that she was not eligible to be included in the dovetailed list. The same was communicated by the petitioner by letter dated 4-1-2002. Aggrieved by the said communication, the first respondent had filed O.A.No. 216/2002 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai. The department filed a detailed reply statement explaining the position that the claim of the applicant was found not entertainable as the temporary appointment given to her was made without due process of selection. The Tribunal without considering the case on merits has allowed the Original Application and directed the petitioner-department to include her name in the dovetailed list. Questioning the same, the Superintendent of Post Offices has filed Writ Petition No. 5026 of 2003. Similar averments have been made in the other writ petitions. 5. Heard Mr. V.T. Gopalan, learned Additional Solicitor General for the Department; Mr. C. Selvaraju, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. M. Radhakrishnan and others for the contesting respondents. 6. Mr. V.T. Gopalan, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Department, after taking us through various orders of the Tribunal, Scheme dated 23-12-1993 framed by the Chief Postmaster General for appointment of Casual Labourers and ED Outsiders, would contend that the applicants therein/contesting respondents in these writ petitions have no vested right for claiming permanent appointment, merely because they worked for certain periods https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ without satisfying all other required conditions. He also contended that the Scheme has been framed for regular absorption of candidates in ED vacancies as a one time measure adopting cut-off date as 11-2- 1988, therefore it cannot be extended to all persons endlessly. He further contended that Clause 4 (g) of the Scheme cannot be read in isolation and by applying the Scheme as whole, it cannot be extended for ever and future cases also. On the other hand, spearheading the main argument on behalf of the applicants/contesting respondents, Mr. M. Radhakrishnan would submit that first of all, the writ petitions are not maintainable and secondly, the applicants are substitutes for Outsiders and their names should be approved by the Department as directed by the Tribunal. He also contended that the Full Bench decisions of the Tribunal have been implemented by the Department for the last 12 years. He further contended that based on the orders of the Tribunal, the Department, particularly the Postmaster General issued various orders implementing the Scheme by including their names in the dovetailed list, hence there is no merit in the present writ