Babu Mathew P. Joseph, J.

The short question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the petitioner was entitled to appointment to the post of Postman in Thiruvalla Division in a vacancy reserved for physically handicapped persons (visually handicapped). The petitioner was appointed as an Extra Departmental Delivery Agent at Mithrakary Post Office in Thiruvalla Division on 10/10/1984. He was subsequently promoted to Group-D post on 13/07/2004. He was promoted to the category of Postman in May, 2010 on the basis of the recommendation made by the Departmental Promotion Committee on 30/03/2010 in a vacancy earmarked for visually handicapped. While continuing so, the petitioner retired from service on 31/10/2014. The main grievances highlighted by the petitioner are: (1) He was denied his due promotion to the post of Postman earmarked for physically handicapped persons in 1997 for the reason that he failed in the examination conducted by the Department for that purpose. If the policy of applying relaxed standards was followed in the case of the petitioner, he would have been promoted in 1997 itself to the post of Postman earmarked for physically handicapped persons. (2) He came to the Department only on his appointment as Group-D on 13/07/2004 and retired from the Department as a Postman on 31/10/2014. Since he was not in the service of the Department prior to 01/01/2004, he is not entitled to the statutory pension as a retired employee from the Department.

2. After he was found not qualified in the written examination conducted by the Department for selection to the post of Postman in the reserved post in 1997, he pursued the matter claiming promotion to that vacancy by submitting several representations one after another before the competent Departmental authorities pointing out his entitlement including the fact that he was entitled to relaxed standards for the purpose of selection in 1997. But, those representations were not considered by the Departmental authorities favourably. Therefore, he has approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) by filing OA No. 772 of 2002 challenging the stand taken by the Department and claiming promotion to the vacancy that was available in 1997. That original application was disposed of permitting the petitioner to submit representation to the respondents and directing them to dispose of the same within a time frame. The establishment did not allow the claim raised by the petitioner in the representation so preferred by him. Again the petitioner approached the CAT by filing OA No. 340 of 2003 which culminated in Ext. P8 order dated 04/11/2003. In that order, the learned Tribunal observed as follows:

"3. We have heard learned Counsel on either side and have gone through the pleadings and materials placed on record. Learned Counsel for the applicant argued that it is evident from Annexure R-1 that Postman and Village Postman are both in Group-D category and they are in identical pay scale. He also invited our attention to Serial No. 8 in page 657 of Annexure R-1 wherein Village Postman has been identified as a post which can be filled by partially blind. It is admitted in the pleadings that there was a post of Postman in Thiruvalla Division reserved for visually handicapped which was carried forward from 1994 to recruitment year 1998. There is no case for respondents that any person who is visually handicapped has been appointed against that post after 1998. From the vacancy position as on date produced by the Counsel for the respondents for our perusal, we find that there is a backlog of one vacancy for being filled by visually handicapped. We did not find any valid contention on the part of the respondents either in the reply statement or in the submissions made now as to why the applicant is not considered for appointment against that reserved vacancy which is still available. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the applica