Welcome to the Official website of National Federation of Postal employees

Saturday, July 7, 2007

LAND MARK JUDGMENT OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Dear Comrades! The Honourable Madras High Court has rejected the appeal of the department and directed to absorb RRR Candidates selected under Compassionate grounds within three months. It may be remembered that the department had committed to absorb them irrespective of the verdict of the Madras High Court. Now the Federation and all CHQs would take all efforts to get those candidates absorbed in the department. The land mark judgment is reproduced here under:  
--
C.C.Pillai
Secretary General NFPE
 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
                             
                      DATED: 20.6.2007
                             
                           CORAM
                             
          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE DHARMARAO ELIPE
                             AND
           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU
                             
                   W.P.Nos.38990 of 2002,
 2832 to 2835 of 2003, 9996 of 2003, 10059 of 2003, 30188 of
             2003, 30345 of 2003, 34623 of 2003,
2567 of 2004, 2711 of 2004, 2750 of 2004, 2762 of 2004, 3003
 of 2004, 3004 of 2004, 3766 of 2004, 3767 of 2004, 3810 of
   2004, 4163 of 2004, 4164 of 2004, 4172 of 2004, 4940 of
   2004, 4986 of 2004, 5132 of 2004, 6369 of 2004, 6424 of
             2004, 11367 of 2004, 21433 of 2004,
               22944 of 2004, & 19967 of 2005,

                             AND

                 W.P.M.P.Nos.58153 of 2002,
3542 to 3545 of 2003, 12665 of 2003, 12760 of 2003, 36870 of
             2003, 37066 of 2003, 42057 of 2003,
2934 of 2004, 3142 of 2004, 3222 of 2004, 3239 of 2004, 3537
 of 2004, 3539 of 2004, 4428 of 2004, 4430 of 2004, 4481 of
   2004, 4901 of 2004, 4903 of 2004, 4912 of 2004, 5771 of
  2004, 5819 of 2004, 7525 of 2004, 7608 of 2004, 13392 of
             2004, 25916 of 2004, 27754 of 2004,
                       21748 of 2005

     AND

                   W.V.M.P.No.2067 of 2006


W.P.No.38990 of 2002:

1. Union of India,
   The Chief Postmaster General
   Tamil Nadu Circle
   Chennai 2

2. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices
   Chennai City South Division
   Chennai.                                    ..Petitioners


 Vs


1. The Central Administrative Tribunal
   City Civil Court Buildings
   Chennai 104.

2. M.Nallavan                              ..Respondents


      W.P.No.38990 of 2002 has been filed under Article  226
of  the  Constitution of India, praying to issue a  Writ  of
Certiorari to call for the records in O.A.No.1131 of 2001 on
the  file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras and
quash the order dated 28.3.2002.


 ===============================================================================

 For petitioners in all the W.Ps. :
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
 Mr.V.T.Gopalan, Addl.Solilcitor General for M/s.S.Yashwanth, M.Devadoss,
 M.Dhamodharan, A.Rajendran, G.Nanmaran, K.L.Nandakumar, Sudharshan Sundar,
 Sunita Kumari, P.Chandrasekaran & K.Kannan, all Central Govt.Standing Counsel

 ===============================================================================

 For R.3 & R7 in WP.10059/2003, For R2, R3, R5, R8, R9, R11 to R42 in WP.9996/03
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
 Mr.Vijay Narayanan, S.C. for M/s.R.Parthiban

 ===============================================================================

 For R.1 in W.P.2567/2004, For R.1 in WP.3004/2004 For R.1 to R.4, R.7 to 21 in
 WP.4172/2004, For R.1 in WP.3003/2004, For R.1 in 2762/2004, For R.3 to R6,
 R8 to 10 & 15 in WP.6424/2004  :
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
 Mr.Vijay Narayanan, S.C. for M/s.Karthikmukundan

 ===============================================================================
   
 For R.1 in W.P.34623/2003  :
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
 Ms.R.Vaigai

 ===============================================================================

 For R.1 in W.P.30188/2003, For R.2 in WP.11367/2004 :
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
 Mr.P.Rajendran

 ===============================================================================

 For R.1 in WP.4163/2004, For R.1 in WP.3810/2004, For R.1 in WP.4940/2004,
 For R.2 in WP.38990/2002, For R.1 in WP.4986/2004, For R.2 in WP.22944/2004,
 For R.2 in WP.2832 to 2835/2003 :
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
 Mr.R.Malaichamy

 ===============================================================================

 For R.1 in WP.2711/2004, WP.3766/2004, R.1 in W.P.3766/2004, for R.1 in
 WP.4164/2004, For R.1 in WP.6369/2004, For R1, R.2, R.7, R11 & R.13 to R.16 in
 WP.6424/2004, For R.2 in WP.21433/2004, for R.5 & R6 in WP.4172/2004 :
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
 No appearance

 ===============================================================================

 For R.1 & R.2 in WP.4986/2004 :
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
 Mr.V.Vijayshankar

 ===============================================================================

 For R.1 in W.P.19967/2005   :
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
 Mr.A.Arokiadoss

 ===============================================================================

 For R.2 to R.22 in W.P.2832/2003   :
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
 Mr.M.Radhakrishnan

 ===============================================================================

                             
                        COMMON ORDER

DHARMARAO ELIPE,  J.

      Since all the matters are inextricably connected  with

each  other, they are heard together and disposed of by this

common order.

 

      2.  The  applicants before the Tribunal, who  are  the

respondents  herein, are all the dependents of  Group-C  and

Group-D  Staff of the Postal Department, who died in harness

or  retired voluntarily on medical grounds and they all have

been  approved for appointment on compassionate  grounds  in

Group-C  and Group-D posts.  They all are working in various

leave  vacancies and short term vacancies.  Since number  of

vacancies  are  lying  vacant,  their  services  are   being

utililzed  for  leave vacancies and thus  they  are  serving

without  any break in service.  The applicants were awaiting

appointment in regular posts and were also imparted clerical

training  by  the Department itself.  After the judgment  of

the  Apex  Court in UMESH KUMAR NAGPAL vs. STATE OF  HARYANA

[(1994)  4  SCC 138], fixing the number of vacancies  to  be

filled  up  by compassionate ground appointment as  5%,  the

Chief  Post  Master  General, Tamil Nadu  circle,  issued  a

letter  on  28.5.2001, seeking willingness  in  writing  for

consideration  for appointment on compassionate  grounds  by

other Ministries/Department from the candidates approved for

compassionate appointment, who could not be given employment

in the petitioner Department since they can also be absorbed

in  other  Government  Departments.   Accordingly,  all  the

applicants have submitted their willingness giving a  choice

of  departments  in  which they prefer to  be  appointed  on

regular basis.

 

       3.   While   things  stood  thus,  the  Ministry   of

Communications,  Union  of  India,  by  the   orders   dated

25.7.2001  and  4.1.2002, impugned before the Tribunal,  has

taken a decision that any maintenance of the waiting list of

approved candidates for compassionate appointment should  be

discontinued immediately and since the waiting list has been

disposed, this may cause hardship to the approved candidates

and in consideration of these aspects, a  decision was taken

to consider such wait listed candidates for vacancies in the

post of Extra Departmental Staff.  Based on the said letter,

the Chief Post Master General, Tamil Nadu Circle, has issued

a  letter on 6.8.2001 to various Post Masters seeking a list

of  vacancies  in the Extra Departmental Staff.   Aggrieved,

the  applicants have filed a batch of Original  Applications

before  the  Tribunal praying to set aside the letter  dated

25.7.2001 of the  Ministry of Communications, Union of India

and  to  direct the Department to appoint the applicants  as

Postal Assistants within a time limit.

 

      4.  The  writ  petitioners/Department filed  a  common

counter  before the Tribunal stating that the  compassionate

appointment  cases  are considered by the  Circle  Selection

Committee,  constituted in accordance with  instructions  of

Directorate's Letter No.24-269/87-SPB 1 dated  24.9.1989  on

merits;  that as per the scheme of compassionate appointment

circulated  by  the Department of Personnel  &  Training  OM

No.14014/6/94-Estt (D) dated 9.10.1998, it has been  clearly

mentioned at para 7(f) that if sufficient vacancies are  not

available  in  any  particular  office  to  accommodate  the

persons  in  the waiting list for compassionate appointment,

it  is open to the administrative Ministry/Department/Office

to      take      up      the     matter     with      other

Ministries/Departments/Offices of the Government of India to

provide  at  an  early  date  appointment  on  compassionate

grounds to those in the waiting list; the Supreme Court  has

ruled  in  the cases of HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT  CORPORATION

vs.   DINESH  KUMAR  [JT  1996(5)  SC  319]  and   HINDUSTAN

AERONAUTICS LIMITED vs. SMT.A.RADHIKA THIRUMALAI   [JT  1996

(9) SC 197] that appointment on compassionate grounds can be

made only if a vacancy is available for that purpose.

 

      5.  It is further submitted that by OM.No.14014/23/99-

Estt(d)  dated  3.12.1999,  it  was  further  clarified   by

Department of Personnel and Training that the Committee  for

considering  a  request  for  appointment  on  compassionate

ground  should also take into account the position regarding

availability  of vacancy for such appointment for  a  really

deserving case and only if vacancy meant for appointment  on

compassionate grounds are available within a year, that  too

within  the ceiling of 5% mentioned,  such cases  should  be

approved;  that the quota for compassionate appointment  was

reduced to 5% as per the decision of the Government of India

communicated  in Department of Posts letter No.24-170/94-SPB

I  dated  11.12.1995  with the result number  of  candidates

selected  for  compassionate appointment  are  kept  in  the

waiting  list;  that the proposal made by the Department  of

Posts  to the Department of Personnel and Training to  relax

the 5% limit in order to accommodate the approved candidates

kept  in  the  waiting  list was also  turned  down  by  the

Department  of  Personnel and Training  citing  the  Supreme

Court  judgment in U.K.Nagpal's case, cited supra,  vide  OM

NO.42012/4/2000-Estt   (d)  dated   24.11.2000;   that   the

Department  of  Posts had to discontinue the maintenance  of

the  waiting  list of approved candidates for  compassionate

appointment  on the basis of Ministry of Personnel  D.O.P.&T

OM No.42012/4/2000-Estt (D) dated 24.11.2000 communicated in

DG Posts letter No.24-1/99-SPB-I, dated 8.2.2001.

 

      6.  It  is further submitted that as on date, all  the

approved  candidates already in the waiting list were  asked

to   express   their   willingness  for  consideration   for

appointment   by   other   Ministries,   however,   it   was

subsequently  found by the Nodal Ministry that  the  chances

for  absorption in the Ministries are remote  and that there

are also not enough vacancies; that keeping this in view, it

was  felt  that  an opportunity can be given to  such  wait-

listed  candidates  who are waiting  for  some  time  to  be

considered for vacant posts of Grameen Dak Sevaks,  if  they

are willing and eligible for the post and hence the Director

General  (Posts)  instructed the  Postal  circles  to  offer

Grameen  Dak  Sevaks  vacancies  to  dependents  of  regular

employees (Grade C and Grade D) who are already approved for

appointment  on  compassionate grounds and whose  names  are

kept  in  the  waiting list for want of regular departmental

vacancies  under  compassionate  appointment  quota  as   on

8.2.2001;  that there is no obligation on the  part  of  the

approved  candidates kept in the waiting list to accept  the

offer  of  appointment as Grameen Dak Sevaks and  therefore,

there  is no arbitrariness in the Scheme of offering Grameen

Dak  Sevak post to the candidates as their willingness  have

been  called for and they have not been forced  to  work  as

Gameen  Dak  Sevaks;  that  the  averment  that  there   are

approximately  1,500  vacancies  in  the  posts  of   Postal

Assistants  cadre  is not correct and  there  are  only  505

vacancies  in  the Postal Assistant cadre for  2001  out  of

which  50%  is to be filled up under Direct Recruitment;  as

appointments have already been made every year upto 1999  in

the  5%  quota  of the compassionate appointments,  and  the

candidates  considered over and above the  prescribed  quota

were  kept  in  waiting list anticipating  chances  of  more

vacancies and when the chances are remote, it was decided to

offer them Grameen Dak Sevak posts taking into consideration

the hardship faced by them.

 

      7. Since the Tribunal, has quashed the impugned orders

dated 25.7.2001 and 4.1.2002 and directed the Department  to

consider  the  case  of  the applicants  for  regularisation

against  the  regular  vacancies  in  the  grade  of  Postal

Assistants/Postman/Grade 'C' or Grade 'D' posts as  per  the

normal  rules  and  orders  governing  compassionate  ground

appointments, the Department has come forward to file  these

writ petitions and obtained orders of interim stay.

 

      8. In the meanwhile, there was a proposal to grant one

time  relaxation to accommodate all the persons included  in

the waiting list .  Before a decision could be taken on this

proposal at the Headquarters, the Chief Post Master General,

Tamil  Nadu Circle had issued a notification to fill up  146

vacancies  by direct recruitment and some of the  applicants

have filed O.A.No.693 of 2004 for a direction to forbear the

writ  petitioners/Department from making any appointment  by

way  of  direct  recruitment and that O.A. was  disposed  of

directing the department to take a decision on the  proposal

pending  with  the  Ministry to grant one  time  relaxation.

Pursuant to the said order, the Department has rejected  the

proposal  and  initiated  action  to  fill  up  further  277

vacancies   and  the  same  was  challenged  by  filing   an

application before the Tribunal.  It is also stated that the

persons  who  had  applied  much  later  to   some  of   the

applicants have been considered for such appointment,  while

some  of  the  applicants  are waiting  for  appointment  in

violation  of  the instructions issued in the  letter  dated

29.9.1989.    The  Tribunal,  directed  the  Department   to

consider  the  case  of seniors, to be appointed,  if  their

juniors are appointed, based on the date of the application.

Aggrieved,  some writ petitions have also been  filed  which

are also the subject matter in this batch of writ petitions.

 

      9.  The  main  core  of the argument  of  the  learned

Additional   Solicitor  General  appearing  for   the   writ

petitioners  in all these writ petitions is that  there  are

well  laid  down  rules regarding compassionate  appointment

which stipulate that compassionate appointment will be  made

to  enable the family of the deceased employee to tide  over

the  financial crisis caused due to the death  of  the  sole

breadwinner,  who  died leaving the  family  in  penury  and

without   sufficient  means  of  livelihood  and   such   an

appointment shall be made only on regular basis and that too

if  regular  vacancy  meant for that is available  upto  the

maximum of 5% of the vacancies and such an appointment is an

exception to general rule that appointment to public  office

should  be made on the basis of competitive merits and  once

it  is proved that in spite of the death of the breadwinner,

the family survived and substantial period is over, there is

no  need to make appointment on compassionate ground at  the

cost of the interests of several others ignoring the mandate

of Art.14 of the Constitution the Tribunal and the applicant

cannot   have   a  choice  to  choose  a  post   under   the

compassionate  ground appointments, without considering  the

good intention of the writ petitioners to offer Grameen  Dak

Sevaks to the applicants, even though the waitlist has  been

cancelled, has wrongly allowed the application, which  needs

upset by this Court.

 

      10. On the contrary, the learned counsel appearing for

the  respondents/applicants before the Tribunal would submit

that   the  Tribunal  has  considered  all  the  facts   and

circumstances of the case encircling the whole issue and has

correctly   arrived   at  the  conclusion   to   allow   the

applications  filed  by the applicants  and  therefore,  all

these  writ  petitions filed by the State are liable  to  be

dismissed and would pray to dismiss all the writ petitions.

 

       11.  In  support  of  his  contentions,  the  learned

Additional  Solicitor  General  of  India  would  cite   the

following decisions:

 

     1.   HINDUSTAN  AERONAUTICS  LTD.  vs.  A.RADHIKA

     THIRUMALAI [(1996) 6 SCC 394];

 

     2.   STATE OF J&K AND OTHERS vs. SAJAD AHMED  MIR

     [(2006) 5 SCC 766] and

 

     3.   UNION   BANK   OF  INDIA  AND   OTHERS   vs.

     M.T.LATHEESH [(2006) 7 SCC 350].

 

     12. There is no quarrel with regard to the propositions

laid  down  therein by the Apex Court.   But, in  all  these

matters, the applicants have crossed the stage, which is the

subject matter in all the above cited judgments in the sense

that  all  the applicants were selected and approved  for  a

posting  on  compassionate  ground  by  a  duly  constituted

Selection Committee as per the procedure laid down and  they

were also provided with necessary training by the Department

at  its  expenses in their training institutes and  employed

them against leave vacancies and most of the applicants  are

in  employment continuously.  Thus, the applicants in  these

cases  are not seeking compassionate appointment  so  as  to

apply  the  norms prescribed by the Apex Court in the  above

cited  judgments,  but  all  these  applicants  are  seeking

regularization  of  their  appointments  pursuant  to  their

selection  by  the duly constituted Selection Committee  and

still  they  continue in their services  and  therefore,  it

cannot  be  said that these applicants are still in  waiting

list.  Therefore, these cases cannot, in no way, be compared

with  the  above cited cases and therefore, the  ratio  laid

down  in the above cases by the learned Additional Solicitor

General  does  not come to the rescue of  the  case  of  the

Department/petitioners.

 

     13. Admittedly, the Post of Grameena Dak Sevak is not a

civil  post.   As  could  be seen from  Endt.No.B5/1-1/Rlgs,

dated 18.7.2002 issued by the Senior Superintendent of  Post

Offices,  Madurai  Division, Madurai, Grameena  Dak  Seveaks

cannot  be  treated as Central Government Employees.   Since

all  the  applicants were already offered  appointments  and

while  circulating their candidature for appointment against

leave  vacancies,  the Department had indicated  that  their

services would be regularised against future vacancies, they

were  under legitimate expectation that their services would

be  regularised in future course of action since  they  were

already held to be suitable and qualified for such posts  by

the duly constituted Selection Committee.  Therefore, as has

been  pleaded on the part of the applicants, they would have

definitely  given  up  all their attempts  to  pursue  other

options available for securing employment and by this  time,

most  of  the  applicants might have even been over-aged  to

pursue  any  further  post.   Further,  having  allowed  the

applicants to work for a number of years with the fond  hope

of  getting  their  posts regularized,  now  the  Department

offers them a non-civil post like Grameena Dak Sevak lest to

vacate the post now they are occupying, which cannot at  all

be  appreciated.   As  has  been  rightly  observed  by  the

Tribunal,  the  entire  approach  and  the  action  of   the

Department  to offer the post of Grameena Dak Sevak  to  the

applicants is without any basis since the same is not at all

covered by the compassionate appointment.'

 

       14.  As  has  already  been  stated  supra,  all  the

applicants   have  been  selected  by  a  duly   constituted

Selection  Committee  and  after after  affording  them  the

necessary training, they were listed for regularization  and

their  services were also utilized against leave/short  term

vacancies.  Therefore, it cannot be said that the applicants

are  in  waiting list for compassionate ground  appointment,

which stage they have already crossed.

 

      15.  Pursuant  to  our direction to file  a  statement

showing  as to how many approved candidates for the post  of

postman  etc. are waiting for appointment and how many  were

absorbed  in regular vacancies between the period  1989  and

2001   and  also  to  furnish  the  details  regarding   the

recruitment  conducted between 1989 and 2001  and  how  many

regular  vacancies  have  been filled  up  during  the  said

recruitment,  the  writ petitioners have filed  a  statement

stating   that   of   the   622  candidates   approved   for

compassionate   appointment  in  Tamil   Nadu   Circle,   89

candidates  have been appointed as Grameena Dak  Sevaks  and

the  remaining 533 candidate who have been offered  Grameena

Dak  Sevaks posts have not come forward to accept  the  same

and  have  chosen  to  seek legal remedy  for  compassionate

appointment  before  the  Court  and  since  there  are   no

vacancies  under  5%  quota  for compassionate  appointment,

waiting  list has been abolished by the Government  and  the

wait  listed candidates are eligible for Grameena Dak  Sevak

posts  according to their willingness and eligibility as  on

date; that apart from them, 600 fresh applications from  the

year  2000 to 2005 have been received from the Units/Regions

of  Tamil Nadu Circle seeking compassionate appointment  and

these  fresh applications have been processed and kept ready

for  submission  to  the  Circle Relaxation  Committee,  but

Circle Relaxation Committee could not be convened due to the

matter being subjudice before the Court.

 

      16.  For the said note submitted by the Department,  a

strong  and  forcible reply note has been submitted  by  the

respondents/applicants  stating  that  the  Department   has

omitted   to  indicate  the  number  of  direct  recruitment

vacancies sought to be filled up for the year 2006 in Postal

Assistant/Sorting  Assistant  category  and  the  number  of

direct recruitment vacancies arising year wise is not  total

number  of  direct  recruitment vacancies but  denotes  only

1/3rd   of  the  same,  since  there  is  a  ban  on  direct

recruitment from the year 2000.  Since 5% quota  has  to  be

calculated  on  the  basis of the total  direct  recruitment

vacancies  arising  for that year and  not  on  the  reduced

number  of  vacancies after applying the ban, the number  of

direct  recruitment vacancies arising year wise as shown  by

the  Department should be multiplied by three to  arrive  at

the  total number of direct recruitment vacancies  for  that

year.

 

       17.   For   the  sake  of  convenience   and   better

appreciation,  the details furnished by the petitioners  and

the respondents are extracted in tabular columns below post-

wise

 

(a) Postal Assistants/Sorting Assistants:

  Details as furnished by the Department   Details furnished
                                                                    by the
                                                                respondents

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~      
 Year    No.of    No.of    No.of    No.of    No.of   No.of
       vacancies vacancie persons  candidatvacancie vacancie
         under   s under appointed    es    s under  s for
         Direct  5% quota  under   waiting  direct  compassi
       Recruitme         compassio   for   recruit-  onate
           nt               nate   compassi  ment   appointm
        (Regular         ground in  o-nate (Regular ents 5%
       vacancies         12% quota appoint-vacancie    of
           )             upto 1994   ment     s)    regular
                           and 5%           before  vacancie
                           quota           applying    s
                         from 1995            ban
-------------------------------------------------------------
2000-01   160       8        --       --      480      24

 2002      160       8        --       --      480      24

 2003      120       6        --       --      360      18

 2004        60       3        --       --      180       9

 2005     320       16       --       --      960      48

 2006     235       12       --       --      705      35

TOTAL  1055      53       --       --     3165     158
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~      
(b) Postman/Mail Guard

 

  Details as furnished by the Department   Details furnished
                                                                       by the
                                                                   respondents
                                          

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~      
 Year    No.of    No.of    No.of    No.of    No.of   No.of
       vacancies vacancie persons  candidatvacancie vacancie
         under   s under appointed    es    s under  s for
         Direct  5% quota  under   waiting  direct  compassi
       Recruitme         compassio   for   recruit-  onate
           nt               nate   compassi  ment   appointm
        (Regular         ground in  o-nate (Regular ents 5%
       vacancies         12% quota appoint-vacancie    of
           )             upto 1994   ment     s)    regular
                           and 5%           before  vacancie
                           quota           applying    s
                         from 1995            ban
-------------------------------------------------------------
2000-01    --       --       --       --      --       --

 2002      40       2        --       --      120      6

 2003      60       3        --       --      180      9

 2004      40       2        --       --      120      6

 2005    120       6        --       --      360     18

TOTAL  260       13       --       --     780     39
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~                           

(c) Group D/Mailman:

  Details as furnished by the Department   Details furnished
                                                                     by the
                                                                respondents
                                          

-------------------------------------------------------------
 Year    No.of    No.of    No.of    No.of    No.of   No.of
       vacancies vacancie persons  candidatvacancie vacancie
         under   s under appointed    es    s under  s for
         Direct  5% quota  under   waiting  direct  compassi
       Recruitme         compassio   for   recruit-  onate
           nt               nate   compassi  ment   appointm
        (Regular         ground in  o-nate (Regular ents 5%
       vacancies         12% quota appoint-vacancie    of
           )             upto 1994   ment     s)    regular
                           and 5%           before  vacancie
                           quota           applying    s
                         from 1995            ban

-------------------------------------------------------------
2000-01    80       4        --       --      240      12

 2002       40       2        --       --      120        6

 2003       40       2        --       --      120        6

 2004       20       1        --       --        60        3

 2005     160       8        --       --      480       24

TOTAL   340       17       --       --    1020      51
-------------------------------------------------------------                                                       


     18. Thus, from the note submitted by the Department and

the  reply  note submitted by the respondents/applicants  we

are  able to understand that there are sufficient number  of

vacancies  in  the Department to absorb the applicants  into

the services of the Department.

 

      19.  The  Tribunal, has considered all the  facts  and

circumstances  of  the  case  in their  proper  perspective,

applying  the correct proposition of law on the subject  and

has arrived at a correct conclusion to direct the Department

to   consider  the  applicants  for  regularisation  against

regular  vacancies  in  which we  are  unable  to  find  any

illegality  or  perversity  in  approach  calling  for   our

interference   under  Article  226  of   the   Constitution.

Therefore, all these writ petitions fail and they are liable

to be dismissed.

 

      In  the  result, all the writ petitions are  dismissed

confirming   the  orders  passed  by  the   Tribunal.    The

petitioners are directed to regularise the services  of  the

applicants before the Tribunal against regular vacancies  in

the  grade of Postal Assistants/Postman/Grade-D posts as per

the  normal rules and orders governing compassionate  ground

appointments within three months from the date of receipt of

a copy of this order.


     No costs. Consequently, all the connected Miscellaneous

Petitions are closed.

 

Rao

To

The Registrar,
Central Administrative Tribunal,
Chennai.

 

 


[PRV/10635]

No comments: