Stop-gap GDS engagement confers no right to regular appointment, absorption, or regularisation.

The applicant was engaged as a Casual Labourer/ED Outsider in the Theni Postal Division on 2 February 1993 and subsequently performed duties redesignated as those of a Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS). He claimed to have completed more than 240 days of service, passed SSLC, and rendered over 23 years of service. He sought preference, absorption, or appointment as GDS under departmental schemes, circulars dated 7 May 2015 and 31 March 2017, and directions issued in earlier litigation concerning inclusion of eligible ED Outsiders in the “dovetailed list”.

The applicant’s representation for absorption was not acted upon, leading him to file OA No. 1136 of 2016. Although the Tribunal directed consideration of his representation, the respondents rejected his claim on 18 August 2016. In the meantime, he was disengaged and other persons were engaged in his place. His subsequent representations dated 24 April 2017 and 17 January 2018 seeking appointment under the clarification dated 31 March 2017 were not decided, resulting in the present OA.

The applicant contended that his long service and experience entitled him to preferential consideration and that his disengagement followed by engagement of outsiders was arbitrary and discriminatory. The respondents maintained that he had been engaged only on a temporary stop-gap basis, had not undergone the prescribed selection process, and had no legal right to absorption or regularisation. They further stated that GDS vacancies were required to be filled through the prescribed online selection process based principally on SSLC merit.

Whether an ED Outsider engaged under a temporary stop-gap arrangement acquires a legal or enforceable right to absorption, regular appointment, regularisation, or reinstatement as a GDS merely because of long service and experience.

Whether the applicant was entitled to preference or absorption under the departmental circulars and clarifications concerning ED Outsiders and part-time contingent employees.

Whether the respondents’ disengagement of the applicant and engagement of other persons in his place warranted a direction for his absorption or reinstatement.

The Tribunal applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, under which the OA was filed.

It relied on the departmental instructions, including Directorate Letter No. 17-115/2001-GDS dated 21 October 2002, that outsiders do not acquire a legal right to regularisation; Letter No. 17-23/2016-GDS dated 1 August 2016, requiring vacant GDS posts to be filled through the prescribed online selection process and SSLC-based merit; and Letter No. 17-141/88/EDC & Training dated 6 June 1988, which granted preference to eligible part-time contingent employees but not necessarily to outsiders.

The Tribunal distinguished regular appointment, provisional engagement, and stop-gap engagement, holding that a stop-gap appointee, who has not undergone the prescribed selection process or test, has no right to regular appointment, absorption, regularisation, or reinstatement.

It followed Superintendent of Post Offices, Chikkamagalur v. Sandeep H.L., W.P. No. 24557/2013 (Karnataka High Court, decided 18 November 2013), and R. Sudha v. Superintendent of Post Offices, OA No. 405/2012 (CAT, order dated 22 April 2016), which held that stop-gap engagement is a local and interim arrangement and cannot create a right to regular appointment or absorption.

The Tribunal also applied the principle that public employment cannot be secured through “back door entry” without compliance with the applicable recruitment rules.

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s engagement was purely stop-gap and that he had neither undergone the prescribed selection process nor passed the requisite test or completed the formalities applicable to regular or provisional GDS appointment.

Consequently, his lengthy service, experience, or completion of 240 days could not, by itself, transform the temporary arrangement into a regular appointment or confer a right to absorption.

The Tribunal further accepted the respondents’ position that GDS vacancies had to be filled through the prescribed recruitment procedure and that the applicant could apply whenever a vacancy was notified, but could not demand direct appointment based on past outsider engagement.

The claimed preference applicable to part-time contingent employees was also unavailable because the applicant had been engaged as an outsider and was not shown to fall within that category.

In view of the governing recruitment principles and the subsequent appointment of candidates through the prescribed process, the Tribunal held that directing absorption or reinstatement would amount to permitting entry into public employment without following the applicable rules.

The applicant was not entitled to direct absorption or preferential appointment as GDS under the relied-upon departmental instructions.

Accordingly, OA/310/00412/2018 was dismissed as devoid of merit, with no order as to costs.