GDS engagement under three years may be terminated under Rule 8 upon one month’s notice.

The Department of Posts issued a notification for appointment to the post of Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Postmaster (GDS BPM), including a post reserved for the Scheduled Caste category at Imlai Branch Office.

The applicant was selected, issued an offer of appointment dated 11 August 2014, completed practical training, and assumed charge as GDS BPM on 5 December 2014.

Subsequently, during scrutiny of the selection process, the respondents discovered that the applicant and another candidate had obtained equal marks in the High School examination, but the applicant was younger and had been placed above the older candidate contrary to the applicable merit principle.

The applicant’s engagement was terminated on 25 May 2015 under Rule 8 of the Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011, with payment equivalent to one month’s TRCA and dearness allowance in lieu of notice.

The applicant challenged the termination, alleging violation of natural justice and claiming reinstatement with consequential benefits.

Whether the applicant’s engagement could be terminated under Rule 8 of the Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011, on account of an error or discrepancy in the selection process, by giving one month’s notice or payment in lieu thereof.

Whether the termination was invalid for having been effected without a show-cause notice or prior hearing, in violation of the principles of natural justice.

Whether the applicant was entitled to reinstatement and consequential benefits after the respondents found that an older candidate with equal marks ought to have ranked higher in the merit list.

Rule 8(1) and the proviso to Rule 8 of the Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011, which permit termination of a Sevak who has not completed three years of continuous engagement by one month’s written notice; termination may be immediate if the Sevak is paid an amount equivalent to one month’s Basic Time Related Continuity Allowance plus applicable dearness allowance in lieu of notice.

Where candidates obtain equal marks, the older candidate is to receive priority in the merit ranking, and the correction of an erroneous selection was treated as a valid basis for cancellation of the applicant’s engagement.

The Tribunal accepted the respondents’ explanation that the applicant had been appointed due to an error in preparing or applying the merit criteria: the applicant and the next candidate had equal High School marks, but the applicant was younger and had improperly been placed above the older candidate.

Since the applicant had completed less than three years of engagement, Rule 8 authorised termination by one month’s notice or payment in lieu thereof.

The respondents had paid the applicant the amount equivalent to the TRCA and dearness allowance for the notice period, thereby complying with the statutory requirement.

On that basis, the Tribunal found no legal defect in the termination and did not grant relief notwithstanding the applicant’s objection that no prior hearing had been provided.

The Original Application seeking quashing of the termination order, reinstatement, and consequential benefits was dismissed for lack of merit, with no order as to costs.