The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement to regularization of services based on the guidelines and legal precedents, including Uma Devi's case.

JUDGMENT

Rekha Borana, J. - The present matters have a long and checkered history. For the purposes of adjudication of the present dispute, a brief detail of the history is essential.

2. Vide order dated 13.06.2002, the process for filling up the post of Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Post Master (GDSBPM), Chandrakh was initiated by the respondent Department. The applicant being eligible applied in pursuance to the said notice and was selected. Vide order dated 18.02.2003, he was offered appointment on provisional basis. It is relevant to mention here that the appointment of the petitioner was in lieu of one Panna Lal, who was regularly appointed on the post. Some disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the said Panna Lal and his services were put-off. Therefore, the appointment of the petitioner was with the condition that he would continue on the post till the disciplinary proceedings are finally disposed of against Panna Lal and he has exhausted all channels of departmental and judicial appeals and petition etc.

3. While the petitioner was continuing in service on provisional basis, the notification dated 24.06.2004 was issued vide which the applications were again invited for the post which the petitioner was holding. The petitioner preferred the OA No. 172/2004 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal") for challenging the said notification. The OA of the petitioner was allowed vide order dated 08.05.2007 wherein it was held as under:-

"It is the instructions/rules framed by the respondents themselves that provisional appointment is tenable till the disciplinary proceedings against regular incumbent are finalized etc. In this case it is admitted that till date the proceedings against regular incumbent have not been finalized. Thus, we see no reason as to why the respondents are bent upon in making again a provisional appointment with a view to replace the applicant who is already working on provisional basis. To us, it appears that that there is an effort on the part of the respondents to dis-entitle the applicant benefits to which he would be entitled if he completes three years of service. This cannot be allowed by a court of law, that too without any rhyme or reason. In the reply there are vague assertions on the part of the respondents that the appointment of applicant is irregular. Not a single specific irregularity has been pointed out by the respondents. Nobody has stopped them from making regular selection to the post. If an eventuality arises that regular holder of the post is to be reinstated, he can be reinstated at some other place. It is provided in the instructions itself. They cannot be allowed to thwart the benefits which may accrue to the applicant one he completes three years of service. The attempt made by the respondents to justify their action on the ground that shortfall of SC/ST is to be full filled does not appeal to reasons. If they proceed to make regular selection, one can understand their logic. But while making an officiating arrangement, such pleas prima facie appear to be tainted with unfairness. Replacement of an officiating hand with another officiating hand is also against the law laid down by various courts, including Hon'ble Supreme Court of India."

4. Meaning thereby, the Department was not restrained from making regular selection to the post but it was specifically held that replacement of a provisional employee by another provisional employee was not permissible. With the said finding, the notification dated 24.06.2004 was quashed and set aside. The said order was not challenged by the respondent Department and the petitioner continued to be in service.

5. In the year 2010, vide notification dated 16.03.2010 applications were again invited by the respondent Department to fill up the post of GDSBPM to be posted at Chandrakh branch post office (Osian) that is the place where the petitioner was working.

6. Aggrieved against the said notice, the peti