ORDER

Applicants 1 to 4 are working as casual labourers under the 4th respondent, 5 to 7 are working as casual labourers under the 6th respondent and 8 to 14 are working as casual labourers under the 7th respondent. They claim that after putting in more than 12 years of casual labour service they are aspiring of getting absorbed against GDS Mail Man posts in the RMS. They were working against the vacant posts of Group-D posts, during day and night. As per the Rules and orders in vogue, casual labourers who have put in minimum 240 days in a year subject to fulfilling other conditions are given preference in the matter of recruitment as Gramin Dak Sevak, GDS. While so, the 3rd respondent issued numerous orders laying down revised eligibility criteria and selection process for engagement to GDS posts which have completely upset the cherished dreams of the applicants for getting into atleast a recognised category post in the department. Aggrieved by the same, the applicants, along with others, filed O.A.238/2016 and connected cases before this Tribunal challenging the classification of casual labourers into two groups, those who were engaged prior to 01.09.1993 and after 01.09.1993, which is unreasonable and unjustified. They contend that such a classification is violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. But the O.A. was dismissed. OP(CAT) 306/2017 preferred before the High Court was also dismissed by Annexure-A6. But invigorated by Annexure-A6 order, under the pretext of so called 'new Rules', the respondents are taking vindictive steps and denied engagement of the applicants and are trying to engage another set of persons of their choice, describing to be those sponsored by the 'Kudumbasree', which is totally unreasonable and against the dictum laid down in various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The applicants are aggrieved by Annexure-A7 issued by the 3rd respondent directing disengagement of the petitioners. Annexure-A6 does not direct or imply that the applicants should be disengaged, but only said that preferential claim for recruitment to the GDS post was limited. Consequent to Annexure-A7, the applicants were denied job from 11.08.2022, which is illegal. Now temporary employees like the applicants are being replaced by another set of temporary employees, which is illegal and against principles of natural justice. Therefore, the applicants seek to quash Annexure-A7 and to direct the respondents to reinstate/re-engage the applicants in employment and allow them to continue till regular selection is made to the posts in which the applicants were being engaged and to continue the engagement in preference to the freshers engaged in the posts in which the applicants were engaged.

2. Respondents filed reply along with Annexures-R1 and R2 denying the contentions of the applicants. According to them, the earlier OA as well as the OP(CAT) 306/2017 filed by the applicants stand dismissed. They have denied the claim of the applicants that they were engaged as casual labourers. According to the respondents, the applicants were engaged to clear extra works on need basis and were paid wages on hourly basis. They have not produced any document showing their engagement as casual labourers. They are purely outsiders engaged intermittently in the vacant posts of GDS. They are liable to be terminated when regular GDSs are engaged through a regular selection process or by transfer. As per the scheme, temporary status is granted to casual labourers, who were in employment as on 01.09.1993, subject to the fulfillment of certain conditions. Therefore, they cannot aspire for the post of GDS. As per the GDS Engagement Rules, 2020, as amended from time to time, selection of candidates is according to the prescribed eligibility criteria from open market and preference cannot be given to casual labourer