IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 19TH JULY 2010 / 28TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).NO. 21666 OF 2010(S) -------------------------- [OA.40/2009 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH] .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- E.K.VINUKUMAR, AGED 41,S/O.KARUNAKARAN- NAIR, EDOLAKANDY HOUSE, NANMINDA P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY SRI.T.A.JOY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP.BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION,DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATION, DEPARTMENT OF POST, NEW DELHI, INDIA. 2. HE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL KERALA CIRCLE, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE INSPECTOR, DEPT.OF POSTS, CALICUT NORTH SUB DIVISION, CALICUT - 673001. 4. THE POST MASTER, GDS, SUB POST OFFICE, NANMINDA, CALICUT. BY SRI.T.P.K.IBRAHIM KHAN, ASST. S.G. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).NO. 21666 OF 2010 :: :: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE CHARGE REPORT DATED 10.09.2007 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE PAY SLIP FOR THE MONTH OF OCTOBER, 2008. EXT.P3: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE PAY SLIP FOR THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER, 2008. EXT.P4: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE PAY SLIP FOR THE MONTH OF DECEMBER, 2008. EXT.P5: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER INVITING APPLICATION DATED 05.12.2008. EXT.P6: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE O.A.NO.40/2009 BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P7: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED 24.02.2009 OF THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REJOINDER DATED 22.03.2009 OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P9: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02.02.2010 IN O.A.NO.49/2009 BEFORE THE CAT, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P10: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE OPEN NOTIFICATION DATED 04.06.2010 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P11: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL //true copy// P.S. To Judge SK/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.21666 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of July, 2010 JUDGMEMT THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. The Inspector of Posts of Calicut North Sub Division, issued a notification on 5.12.2008 inviting applications for being considered for appointment to the post of Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Packer {for short 'GDSMP'} in the Nanminda Sub Post Office. On the allegation that the petitioner had been, off and on, working as GDSMP for the last 20 years and had been continuously officiating from 10.9.2007 against that post, the petitioner challenged the proposal to make selection in terms of the aforesaid notification. That challenge was repelled by the Tribunal, which found that there was absolutely no material for the petitioner to show that he had been working for the past 20 years in the Department. The department had submitted before the Tribunal that he had been initially W.P.(C).No.21666 of 2010 :: 2 :: engaged from10.9.2007 to 19.9.2007, which was extended by another 89 days from 20.9.2007. The Tribunal found that the petitioner's engagement, as above, was not on a regular basis and it was only till the regular appointment was made, in terms of the prescribed procedure. The Tribunal also found that the petitioner had not undergone any selection process for regular appointment and he had no legal right to challenge the impugned notification for selection on regular basis, in accordance with the prescribed procedure. It was also found that the petitioner has no valid preferential claim over that post. The Tribunal also took the view that the original application filed before it was a frivolous one and the petitioner was working as 'GDSMP' only on a stop gap basis, which is a very low post, and therefore, taking a lenient view, the Tribunal was not imposing an order of costs on him. 2. With the aforesaid, we notice that even going by the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner is only 41 years of age. If we were to assume that he had been serving W.P.(C).No.21666 of 2010 :: 3 :: for 20 years in the postal department, without any scrap of paper with him, we have to swallow his statement that when he attained 20/21 years of age, he had been employed with the postal department. There is no evidence at all to hold so. The writ petition does not merit consideration. The same is dismissed in limine. Sd/- (THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN) JUDGE Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge.