Appointment of Gramin Dak Sevaks as Postmen is direct recruitment, not promotion.

The applicant had served as an Extra Departmental Main Carrier/Delivery Agent (GDS) since 22 June 1983.

After more than 31 years of service, he sought appointment as Dakpal, asserting that similarly situated employees had been appointed.

The respondents rejected his representation, stating that GDS service did not confer an automatic right to promotion and that appointment depended on the applicable recruitment process and vacancies.

They also stated that the applicant had been offered consideration for Branch Postmaster posts at nearby locations but was willing to work only at Bhatigawan, where no vacancy existed.

The applicant challenged the rejection before the Tribunal

1. Whether the applicant’s long service as a GDS conferred a right to promotion or appointment as Dakpal/Postman

2. Whether the respondents’ treatment of other GDS employees, and their rejection of the applicant’s claim, amounted to unlawful discrimination or otherwise warranted relief

The Tribunal relied on the GDS (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2001, noting that GDS are governed by a separate set of rules and that the applicant had identified no provision granting automatic promotion based on length of service.

It applied the principle that appointment to another post must follow the applicable Recruitment Rules and prescribed method of recruitment.

It also relied on Y. Najithamol & Ors. v. Soumya S.D. & Ors., (2016) 9 SCC 352, which held that GDS/Extra Departmental Agents are outside the regular Postal Service and that their appointment to the regular Postman cadre under the relevant rules is by direct recruitment, not promotion; GDS do not constitute a feeder cadre for promotion to that cadre.

The Tribunal held that 31 years of GDS service, without more, did not create a vested or statutory right to appointment as Dakpal/Postman.

The applicant had not participated in or qualified through the prescribed competitive examination for the post claimed, and he did not establish a rule entitling him to automatic appointment.

The alleged comparators did not establish discrimination because, according to the respondents, they had expressed willingness to serve as Branch Postmasters where vacancies were available.

The applicant, by contrast, declined consideration for nearby locations and sought appointment only at Bhatigawan, where no vacancy existed.

It dismissed the Original Application as devoid of merit, with no order as to costs.