An employee appointed dehors the Constitutional scheme of employment is not entitled to continuation of service or regularization.

The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 19.11.2013 passed by the fifth respondent, viz., the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Chennai (for short “the Tribunal”) in O.A. No.61 of 2012, wherein and whereunder, the application filed by the petitioner was dismissed holding that the petitioner has been working in the leave vacancies with intermittent breaks and as such, he was not entitled to absorption in any of the vacant posts of Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Deliverer (for short “GDS/MD”).

2. The indisputable facts in brief, as projected by the petitioner before the Tribunal are, as under:

2.1. The petitioner had been working in the respondent department in various capacities as an outsider as Postman, Group-D and GDS with effect from 1988. He had completed more than 240 days work during the period 1991-1992. He was thereafter appointed provisionally as Extra Departmental Delivery Agent-II (for short “EDDA -II”), now known as GDS Delivery Agent-II, vide order dated 07.11.1997. Thereafter, pursuant to the notification issued by the fourth respondent, he was also selected and appointed on provisional basis by order dated 17.03.1999. On review, the said appointment order dated 17.03.1999 was cancelled by higher authorities by order dated 10.04.1999. He filed an Original Application, being O.A. No.483 of 1999 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by order dated 15.11.1999, set aside the cancellation of appointment. However, liberty was reserved to the respondents to issue notice to the petitioner and other applicants and pass a fresh order on merit and it became final.

2.2. According to the petitioner, he was appointed on 10.04.1999 against leave vacancy and continued thereafter. The petitioner made a representation on 29.06.2011 to the third respondent to consider his appointment in any vacancy in the post of GDS in Tambaram Division. It was the case of the petitioner that some of the similarly situated outsiders approached the Tribunal in O.A. No.811 of 1988 to absorb them as GDS, which was allowed by the Tribunal and the writ petition in W.P. No.27274 of 2004 filed thereagainst was dismissed by this Court by order dated 23.01.2006. The Special Leave Petition filed thereagainst, being S.L.P. (C) No.21825 of 2006, is pending consideration before the Supreme Court. The petitioner filed the present application on the ground that the respondent Department was directed to absorb the similarly situated outsiders and thus, he is also entitled to the same relief.

3. The case of the respondents 1 to 4 before the Tribunal was that the petitioner was engaged as a substitute in the leave vacancies of Postman/Group “D” as and when vacancy arose; he was initially engaged as an outsider with effect from 07.11.1997 purely on temporary basis in the post of GDS/MD, Gowriwakkam, due to unauthorised absence of a regular incumbent for a long time. Thereafter, the petitioner participated in the selection, which was cancelled subsequently; challenging the said order, O.A. No.483 of 1999 was filed by the petitioner which was dismissed by the Tribunal, reserving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order of appointment of a third party, if so advised. Consequent thereupon, a show cause notice was issued and thereafter, on consideration of the reply of the petitioner and others, the cancellation order of provisional selection was confirmed vide order dated 05.02.2000 passed by the fourth respondent. The said order was not challenged. The petitioner was appointed against leave vacancy, subsequently, not in accordance with the legal procedure and as such, he has no right to absorption or regularisation.

4. The Tribunal, having considered all aspects of the matter, held as follows:

“We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the records. The applicant's contention that he has been working since 1988 is not seen substantiated based on the record and as stated in the OA the applicant has been worki