CAT Rejects Four-Year Stop-Gap Postal Worker’s Bid For Regular Job After She Failed Two Recruitment Rounds

In brief

The question

Whether a person engaged on a stop-gap basis as a GDS BPM could claim regular appointment to the post or placement on the waiting list under the instructions governing provisional appointments.

The court held

The Tribunal held that the applicant had no right to regularisation or waiting-list placement arising from her stop-gap engagement, and that the challenge to the cancellation lacked merit.

It also directed

The Original Application was dismissed, with no order as to costs.

01Facts

The applicant was engaged from 9 October 2012 as Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Postmaster (GDS BPM) at Hospet Branch Office on a stop-gap basis, with her engagement renewed periodically.

pp. 2–4

She unsuccessfully participated in two recruitment processes for the post; the selected candidates did not ultimately continue or join.

pp. 2–4

In August 2016, the Department cancelled her engagement, citing a proposal for online selection of GDS personnel.

pp. 2–4

She challenged the cancellation and sought regularisation or alternative employment, relying on instructions concerning provisional GDS appointments.

pp. 2–4

The Tribunal’s original order was set aside by the Karnataka High Court, which remitted the matter for fresh consideration without deciding the merits.

pp. 2–4

02Issues

i.Whether a person engaged on a stop-gap basis as a GDS BPM could claim regular appointment to the post or placement on the waiting list under the instructions governing provisional appointments.

pp. 5–6, 8–11

ii.Whether the Department’s cancellation of the applicant’s stop-gap engagement was liable to be set aside.

pp. 4, 6, 11–12

03Law Applied

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, provides the basis for an application to the Tribunal.

p. 2

Paragraph 17 of the GDS (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2001, incorporating the relevant departmental instructions, concerns provisional appointments and provides for efforts to offer alternative employment, including waiting-list placement, to qualifying provisionally appointed agents discharged for administrative reasons.

pp. 5, 7–8

In The Superintendent of Post Offices v. Sandeep H.L., W.P. No. 24557/2013 (Karnataka High Court, 18 November 2013), the Court distinguished provisional appointment from a local stop-gap arrangement: a stop-gap appointee has no right to regular appointment or inclusion in the waiting list, while provisional appointment entails the prescribed recruitment formalities.

pp. 5–6, 8–10

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 Section 19

04Reasoning

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s engagement was admittedly a stop-gap arrangement, not a provisional appointment.

p. 6, 8

It therefore held that paragraph 17(2), which applies to provisionally appointed GDS agents, did not confer on her a right to alternative employment or waiting-list placement.

pp. 8–11

The applicant had participated in the regular recruitment processes but was unsuccessful; appointing a candidate through recruitment under the applicable rules in place of a stop-gap appointee was not unlawful, and granting the applicant regular appointment would amount to a backdoor entry.

p. 11

05Holding

The Tribunal held that the applicant had no right to regularisation or waiting-list placement arising from her stop-gap engagement, and that the challenge to the cancellation lacked merit.

p. 12

The Original Application was dismissed, with no order as to costs.

p. 12

LawLens.CAT - ['Bangalore']

Original Court PDF