When a provisional appointment is declared void due to judicial reinterpretation of recruitment rules, an employer is obligated to restore the employee to their original substantive position to ensure equitable terminal benefits rather than depriving them of all employment benefits.

O R D E R

The factual matrix briefly stated is as under – the applicant was working as an Extra Departmental Delivery Agent (EDDA), Kakkakunnu Branch Post Office. He appeared in the examination for the post of Postman for the vacancies of the year 2010. Pursuant to the said examination, a select list was published. On the information collected on the marks obtained by the candidates it was found that one Shri.Anil Kumar selected under OBC quota secured only 116 marks whereas he got 138.5 marks. It is submitted that during that period the settled law was that appointment to the cadres of Postman from among GDS (then EDDA) is under promotion and hence reservation to OBC candidates not permissible.

2. The applicant consequently approached the Tribunal and the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala and following the decisions thereunder he held the position of Postman from 11.12.2010 until his retirement on 30.04.2021. Prior to his retirement he submitted a request before the 3^rd respondent for timely disbursement of pensionary benefits and pointing out that the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.2114/2017 filed by the department is only pending. Since there was no response he also sent a reminder. Later it is submitted that the aforesaid SLP was allowed vide judgment dated 10.07.2023. Immediately on receipt of the judgment he submitted a request to the 3^rd respondent to disburse retirement benefits or to permit him to continue as GDS (MD) Kakkakunnu Branch Post Office till he attains the age of 65 years ie., upto 31.03.2026. However, again there was no specific reply to the said representation too. As of now the applicant has not received any benefits for his service as GDS nor has he received pensionary benefits for his service as Postman.

3. It is the contention of the respondents that the appointment of the applicant to the post of Postman, Kadambanad South with effect from 30.07.2015 was provisional and subject to the outcome of the S.L.P.No.2114/2017 pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein vide order dated 06.01.2016 it has been ordered that the matter may be listed after pronouncement of judgment in Civil Appeal No.90/2015. It is pointed out that Civil Appeal No.90/2015 and Civil Appeal No.91/2015 were disposed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide judgment dated 12.08.2016 thereby setting aside the orders of Tribunal and the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala holding that the selection of Extra Departmental Agents or Gramin Dak Sevaks to the post of Postman under Column

11(2)(ii) of the Recruitment Rules is only by way of direct recruitment and not by way of promotion. Hence the reservation for candidates belonging to OBC is permissible in cases of direct recruitment. Consequently, the said S.L.P.No.2114/2017 filed by the respondents against O.P.(CAT) No.31/2015 was disposed of vide order dated 10.07.2023 on the same terms as per the judgment dated 12.08.2016 in the aforesaid Civil Appeal No.90/2015 and Civil Appeal No.91/2015 (Y.Najithamol & Ors. vs. Soumya S.D & Ors.).

4. It is submitted that the applicant retired from service on 30.04.2021 and that NPS benefits and Severance Amount were disbursed to him. Further as per the judgment in Y.Najithamol (supra) it is held that selection of GDS to the post of Postman is by way of direct recruitment and it was affirmed that OBC reservation is permissible in this type of direct recruitment. Hence the selection of the applicant became null and void and he is not entitled to the post of Postman and consequential benefits thereto. While the representation filed by the applicant to the 3^rd respondent on 11.06.2024 see