IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 28TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 9TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 53 of 2005(S) ----------------------- OA.866/2004 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER: ------------ ASHA JOSE, D/O.JOSE MATHEW, AGED 22 YEARS, GDS BRANCH POST MASTER, ADUKKOM, POSTAL DIVISION KOTTAYAM, RESIDING AT KAKKANIYIL, THEKKOY P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.HARIRAJ SMT.REKHA VASUDEVAN SRI.SURAJ.S SRI.P.A.KUMARAN SMT.VINEETHA B. RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, KOTTAYAM. 2. POST MASTER GENERAL, CENTRAL REGION. 3. CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL, KERALA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS, NEW DELHI. BY ADV. SRI.T.P.SAJID, ADDL.CGSC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 53 of 2005(S) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.B6/4/A-02 DATED 22/11/2004 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.B6/4/A-02 DATED 11/03/2002 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF MEMO NO.SDI/3D/1FR DATED 15/3/2002 ISSUED BY THE SUB DIVISIONAL INSPECTOR OF POST OFFICES, PALAI SUB DIVISION. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF CHARGE REPORT DATED 27/03/2002 EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 13/11/2001 EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF DB P&T LETTER NO.43-4/77.PEN, DATED 18/05/1979 AS AMENDED BY CIRCULAR NO.19-34/99-ED & TRG.DATED 30/12/1999 EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF OA 866/2004 FILED BY THE APPLICANT BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL (WITHOUT ANNEXURES) IN O.A NO.866/2004. EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER DATED 07/12/2004 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH. \\TRUE COPY// C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JJ. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W.P.(C) No.53 of 2005-S ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Dated this the 28th day of February, 2008 J U D G M E N T C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. The petitioner was appointed as provisional E.D agent (Gramin Dak Sevak) when the regular incumbent in the post was suspended from service. However, the suspended person successfully challenged disciplinary action against him and he got reinstated. It was necessary that the petitioner was to be released as she was appointed as provisional hand pending finalisation of disciplinary proceedings against the suspended person. Obviously, petitioner cannot seek for regularisation of employment and CAT rightly rejected it through the impugned order. However, counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that Ext.P6 providing for not less than three years continuous service on temporary basis for preference for re-employment is illegal and arbitrary. Counsel has compared the same with provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act wherein, only one year service is required for re-employment on preferential basis. We do not think Ext.P6 is a Rule but it is only a guideline providing method of recruitment of ED Agents. We are unable to W.P.(C) No. 53 of 2005-S -: 2 :- accept the petitioner's contentions that the guideline should provide same service as under I.D.Act for eligibility for re-employment. Admittedly, the E.D Agent has to do work only for a limited period in a day and, therefore, employment of E.D agent is not comparable to that of Industrial worker who is put to 8 hours of continuous work. We do not think a manufacturing industry is comparable to that of a postal service, to equate both for purpose of eligibility for re- employment with reference to service. Even though petitioner does not have full period of service required under the guidelines for priority even two years service adds weightage to her qualification in recruitment. We dismiss the writ petition with the above observation. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Judge T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Judge ms