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 3RD APRIL 2008 / 14TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 24935 of 2005(S) -------------------------- OA.536/2004 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER: ------------ AJIKUMAR N.R., G.D.S.M.D., THAICKAL P.O., CHERTHALA SUB DIVISION, CHERTHALA, RESIDING AT NEDUMPARAMBIL, THAICKAL P.O CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 554. BY ADV. SRI.R.KRISHNAKUMAR (CHERTHALA) RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENNT OF POST OFFICES, ALAPPUZHA DIVISION, ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE SUB DIVISIONAL INSPECTOR OF POST OFFICES, CHERTHALA SUB DIVISION, CHERTHALA-688 554. 3. THE SUB POSTMASTER, THAICKAL-688 554. 4. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS, NEW DELHI. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R1 TO R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1:TRUE COPY OF O.A. NO.536/04 PREFERRED BY PETITIONER BEFORE CAT, ERNAKULAM. P2: TRUE COPY OF COUNTER STATEMENT FILED BY RESPONDENT IN O.A. NO.536/04 BEFORE THE CAT. P3: TRUE COPY OF REJOINDER FILED BY PETITIONER IN O.A. NO.536/04 BEFORE CAT. P4: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.12.7.2005 PASSED BY CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH IN O.A. NO.536/2004. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.24935 of 2005 .................................................................... Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2008. JUDGMENT C.N.Ramachandran Nair, J. Sri.V.K.Chandran, Gramin Dak Sevak attached to the Thaickal Post Office was suspended and disciplinary action was taken against him. In the vacancy that arose on account of disciplinary proceedings initiated against the said person, petitioner was engaged on adhoc basis intermittently for various periods. Though the disciplinary proceedings against the regular hand ended up in dismissal, the proceedings have not become final in as much as he was pursuing his challenge against the disciplinary action. The petitioner approached the CAT for regularisation which was found against by the CAT. Even though counsel contended that petitioner as a provisional hand is entitled to regularisation on account of three years service under Ext.P1 Office Memorandum, the Assistant Solicitor General opposed the same stating that petitioner was only an adhoc appointee and not a provisional hand because according to him, selection for provisional hand should be in accordance with the procedure i.e. after inviting applications and by making selection from among candidates. We 2 do not find any ground to interfere with the Tribunal's order. However, we notice that even though there was no stay against appointment of provisional hands, the department has allowed the petitioner to continue. In fact, in the course of pendency of application before the Tribunal and the W.P. in this court, petitioner served around 8 years. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has already attained the age of 35 years and on account of delay in inviting applications which again is on account of the delay in finalisation of disciplinary proceedings, petitioner will become ineligible to apply for the post on account of age bar. As already stated, even though the department could have appointed provisional hand to substitute petitioner who was appointed on adhoc basis as there was no stay or prohibitory order by the CAT or by this court, department has not chosen to do so. Obviously petitioner's service is to the satisfaction of the department and probably they did not want to disturb the petitioner. In any case there is no scope for appointment of a provisional hand at this distance of time because the disciplinary proceedings initiated years back against the regular hand should come to an end shortly. We, therefore, dispose of the W.P. upholding the order of the Tribunal in principle, but directing the Post Master General to consider petitioner's subsequent services after the Tribunal rendered their order with reference to the relevant Rule and 3 consider whether he is eligible for regularisation. This of course arises only if the disciplinary action taken against the regular hand is confirmed in favour of the department. If petitioner is found ineligible for regularisation at that point of time, it is open to the department to appoint regular hand under the Rules. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms