Challenge to a show-cause notice is premature absent jurisdictional infirmity or a final adverse order.

The applicant had served the Postal Department in various capacities, including as a part-time casual labourer and GDS Stamp Vendor, and was appointed as GDS Stamp Vendor, Ranipet Head Office, on a provisional basis in July 2010 and subsequently on a regular basis by order dated 27 November 2010.

The respondents later reviewed the appointment on the ground that the prescribed recruitment procedure had not been followed and cancelled it.

In earlier proceedings, including OA No. 439/2012 and OA No. 750/2014, the Tribunal set aside the adverse orders and directed reinstatement, while permitting the respondents to act in accordance with law.

Pursuant thereto, the applicant rejoined service on 4 April 2019.

The respondents thereafter issued the impugned show-cause notice dated 1 July 2019, proposing to treat his selection as irregular and cancel the appointment.

The applicant challenged the notice, contending that it amounted to repeated review of his appointment after a substantial delay and that the respondents had already predetermined the matter.

Whether the Original Application challenging the show-cause notice dated 1 July 2019 was maintainable at the preliminary stage, before any final adverse order had been passed.

Whether the competent superior authority could invoke Rule 4(3) of the GDS (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2001 to examine the legality or material irregularity of the applicant’s appointment pursuant to the liberty granted in the earlier proceedings.

Whether the Tribunal should adjudicate, at the stage of the show-cause notice, the ultimate legality of the applicant’s appointment and the alleged breach of the applicable recruitment procedure.

The Tribunal applied Rule 4(3) of the GDS (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2001, which permits review by the superior authority of an appointment made illegally or with material irregularity by the recruiting authority.

It considered the Directorate of Posts instructions dated 17 September 2003 and 25 June 2010, which required merit-based selection and maintenance and operation of a prescribed select panel for GDS appointments.

The Tribunal also referred to Post Master General, Kolkata v. Tutu Das (Dutta), (2007) 5 SCC 317, and State of Bihar v. Upendra Narayan Singh, (2009) 5 SCC 65, for the principle that public appointments made by bypassing the prescribed recruitment process and constitutional requirements of equality of opportunity cannot be validated merely by prolonged service or regularisation.

Applying Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, (2006) 12 SCC 28, the Tribunal held that a challenge to a show-cause notice is ordinarily premature, since the notice does not itself determine rights or impose a final adverse consequence, unless issued without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal distinguished between the merits of the alleged irregular appointment and the limited question arising from the challenge to the show-cause notice.

Although the respondents alleged that the applicant had been appointed without notification of the vacancy, invitation of applications or nominations, consideration of competing candidates, or merit-based selection, no final decision had yet been taken.

The earlier Tribunal order had quashed the previous proceedings but expressly permitted the respondents to proceed in accordance with law.

Consequently, the respondents’ invocation of Rule 4(3) was within their jurisdiction and consistent with the liberty earlier granted.

The applicant remained entitled to raise all factual and legal objections before the competent authority, including objections concerning the applicable rules, delay, prior litigation, and the circumstances of his appointment.

Judicial intervention at that stage would prematurely terminate the statutory process and prevent the authority from deciding whether the proceedings should be dropped or whether the alleged irregularity was established.

The interim order dated 22 July 2019 staying the show-cause notice was vacated.

The respondents were directed to proceed with the matter, consider the applicant’s explanation and all relevant submissions, and pass a reasoned order strictly in accordance with law, preferably within three months from receipt of the Tribunal’s order.

The Original Application was accordingly disposed of without an order as to costs.