Provisional GDS deployment without prescribed selection creates no right to regular appointment or continuance.

The applicant was initially engaged provisionally as a Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Deliverer (GDS MD) at Bindra Bazar on 23 February 2003.

After the regular incumbent’s retirement, he was deployed as GDS MD/Mail Carrier at Ranipur Rajmo with effect from 8 March 2004.

Following the retirement of the Branch Postmaster (BPM), he was permitted to perform the duties of GDS BPM, Ranipur Rajmo, in addition to his own duties, and was subsequently deployed as GDS BPM by order dated 27 May 2009.

The orders expressly stated that the arrangement was temporary/intermittent, terminable at any time, and would not confer any right to regularisation.

The Department later treated the applicant’s deployment as irregular, directed that he be returned to his original post, and advertised the post of GDS BPM, Ranipur Rajmo, on 25 February 2013 through the prescribed recruitment process.

The applicant challenged the advertisement and sought quashing of the order, continuance on the post, payment of salary, and protection against appointment of any other person.

He contended that he had worked against the clear vacancy since 2006 and had acquired a right to continue or be regularised.

The respondents maintained that his engagement was purely provisional and had not resulted from a regular selection process by the competent authority.

Whether the applicant, having worked for several years as a provisional/intermittent substitute GDS BPM, acquired a legal right to continue against or be regularised to the post of GDS BPM, Ranipur Rajmo?

Whether the respondents could advertise and fill the post of GDS BPM, Ranipur Rajmo, through the prescribed recruitment procedure despite the applicant’s prior deployment against the post?

Whether the applicant’s deployment, having been made without a regular selection process and subject to express termination conditions, created an enforceable right against the Department?

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

Engagement to a regular GDS post is governed by the Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules and requires notification of the vacancy, consideration of eligible candidates, preparation of a merit list, and selection in accordance with the prescribed procedure; provisional or officiating service cannot substitute for such selection.

Applying Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1, the Tribunal held that temporary, casual, ad hoc, or irregular service does not create a right to regularisation where the initial appointment was not made through a constitutionally compliant selection process.

It also relied on Basant Kumar Srivastava v. Union of India, Writ-A No. 27776 of 2009, where the Allahabad High Court held that substitute or provisional GDS service, particularly when not appointed by the competent authority under the recruitment rules, does not confer a right to absorption or permanent appointment.

The applicant’s reliance on Sudhakar Maurya v. Union of India, O.A. No. 890 of 2010, was distinguished because that case concerned irregular transfer orders, whereas the present case concerned continuance of a provisionally engaged GDS against a post requiring regular recruitment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s initial engagement as GDS MD was expressly provisional and terminable without notice, and that his subsequent deployment as BPM was likewise an intermittent arrangement containing an express stipulation that it could be terminated at any time and would not support a claim for regularisation.

His service as BPM was therefore not the result of notification, open consideration, merit-based selection, or appointment by the competent authority under the GDS recruitment framework.

The length of his service and payment of salary could not cure the defect in the mode of appointment or confer a substantive right to the post, in view of the principles in Umadevi and Basant Kumar Srivastava.

Since the post remained to be filled through the regular recruitment process, the Department was entitled—and required—to advertise it and invite applications.

The applicant could participate in that process if eligible, but could not restrain the Department from making a regular appointment.

The respondents were therefore justified in advertising the post and proceeding with recruitment under the applicable rules.

The Original Application was dismissed, all pending miscellaneous applications were also dismissed, and no order as to costs was made.

The applicant was left free to apply for the advertised post and compete on merit, subject to eligibility.