Administrative authorities must comply with established procedures for service recognition, and delays in challenging administrative actions can bar entitlement to relief.

JUDGMENT

P.V.BALAKRISHNAN, J

This original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the respondents in OA No.180/00619/2020, challenging the order dated 31.10.2022, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, allowing the OA filed by the respondent herein.

2. The respondent herein joined service as Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Deliverer (hereinafter referred to as 'GDSMD'), Kusumagiri, pursuant to a selection process conducted by the petitioners and was appointed on 10.12.2009. After 2 years and 8 months of service, the respondent was issued with an order dated 22.08.2012, by the 5^th petitioner communicating him a decision of the 4^th petitioner to terminate his employment as GDSMD, since he was mistakenly appointed without considering the better merit of one Ajith.V, who secured more marks in the SSLC. The respondent challenged the afore order by filing O.A.No.835/2012 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which stayed the operation of the termination order. Ultimately, by Annexure A1 order dated 27.11.2015, the Tribunal directed that a formal appointment order shall be issued to Ajith V., who stood first in the selection and, though the respondent shall have to vacate the post of GDSMD, Kusumagiri, he shall be accommodated in any of the vacant post available in the Division. In compliance with the order of the Tribunal, the 5^th petitioner issued an appointment order appointing the respondent as GDSMD II, Kakkanad. While so, the 2^nd petitioner issued a notification dated 02.08.2016, calling applications for appearing in the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (hereinafter referred to as 'the LDCE' for short), for appointment to the vacancies in the cadre of Postman/Mail Guard. The respondent's application was not considered stating that he did not possess 5 years regular service permitting him to appear for the examination. Challenging the said decision, the respondent filed O.A.No.836/2016 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, seeking a direction to reckon his entire service as GDSMD for considering his candidature for the LDCE for Postman. The Tribunal, in the meanwhile, ordered the respondent to appear provisionally in the examination, by way of an interim order. When the results were published, the candidates who appeared in the examination along with the respondent, were appointed as Postman with effect from 16.11.2016. The respondent's result was withheld due to the pendency of the Original Application. Subsequently, the Tribunal, by Annexure A4 order, declared that the respondent is entitled to have his entire service as GDSMD reckoned as qualifying for the purpose of appearing in the LDCE for Postman. The petitioners were also ordered to issue consequential appointment order, since the respondent had passed the exam. Though as per Annexure A4, six weeks time was granted to the petitioners to issue appointment order, they issued Annexure A5 appointment order only on 14.11.2017. The respondent was thereafter confirmed as Postman by Annexure A6 order dated 08.06.2020. While so, the 2^nd petitioner notified the LDCE for selection to the post of Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant as per Annexure A7. As per Annexure A7, a Postman/Mail Guard having 3 years of regular service in the grade, as on 01.01.2020 is eligible for applying for selection. Even though, the respondent applied, he was not issued an admit card. It is hence, the respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking the following reliefs:

“i. To declare that the applicant is entitled to be notionally appointed with effect from