Department is liable to extend benefit of scheme until all eligible casual labourer full time and part-time EDA/GDS are absorbed against existing and future vacancies.

(Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for records pertaining to O.A.No.216 of 2002 on the file of Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench/2nd respondent herein, dated 20-11-2002 and to quash the said order.)

Common Order

P. SATHASIVAM, J.

Since the issue raised in all the Writ Petitions is common, they are being disposed of by the following common Order. Aggrieved by the individual orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, directing the respondents therein to include the applicants in the Dovetailed list and consider their case, Postal Department has filed the above Writ Petitions.

2. For convenience, we shall refer the case of the parties as stated in Writ Petition No. 5026 of 2003. According to the petitioner-Superintendent of Post Offices, Salem West Division, Salem, the post of Branch Postmaster, Kattanachampatti Branch Office in account with the Rasipuram Sub Post Office fell vacant on 4-3-98. Till a regular incumbent is selected and posted, the first respondent-A. Suguna was appointed purely on temporary basis for a period from 4-3-98 to 3-5-98, and it was subsequently extended from 4-5-98 to 15-11-98. The said appointment was made with a specific condition that she would be terminated when regular appointment is made and she shall not have any claim to appoint to any post.

3. It is further stated that the vacancy for the post of Branch Postmaster, Kattanachampatti was notified and selection was done on 20-9-98. One A. Saraswathi who had secured highest marks in the 10th Standard was selected and appointed with effect from 16-11-98. The first respondent also applied for the post, but was not considered as she did not fulfill the eligibility conditions. Further, since the other applicant-A. Saraswathi was selected and appointed by following due process, the temporary appointment given to the 1st respondent was terminated on 16-11-98. The first respondent filed O.A.Nos.973/98 and 1032/98 challenging the selection of A. Saraswathi for the said post. The Tribunal by order dated 16-9-99, dismissed both the Original Applications with an observation that the applicant/first respondent cannot claim regularisation based on her temporary service. Therefore, she filed another Original Application, viz., O.A.No.978/2001 seeking for a direction to include her name in the dovetailed list based on her temporary service from 4-3-98 to 16-11-98. The said O.A. was disposed of by the Tribunal with direction to the respondent therein to consider the request of the applicants/1st respondent.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that as per letter No. 41-286/87-PE II dated 14-12-87 of the Director General of Post, New Delhi, provisional appointments which are expected to continue for a long period should be made observing the due formalities of selection. The persons having worked as ED Agents in substitute capacity or provisional basis cannot claim the benefit or regularisation on the ground that they have completed 240 days of service. The Chief Postmaster General, Tamil Nadu Circle in his instruction No.REP/84-73/93 dated 23-12-93, has instructed that hereafter substitutes are not engaged in ED vacancies for long periods indefinitely. In case of prolonged leave vacancies, a provisional appointment should be made through the Employment Exchange after observing the due process. The said instruction also states that the dovetailed list should be prepared by each Division showing the names of the candidates, their status, date of initial engagement and date of birth etc., at the Regional Office level and Circle Office. The first respondent who worked as Branch Postmaster from 4-3-98 to 16-11-98 on an arrangement made without any due process of selection pending regular appointment is not eligible to be considered to include her name in the dovetailed list. The temporary and adhoc appointment of the first respondent cannot be t