Substitute appointees lack a legal right to regularization or parity with employees appointed through formal recruitment.

The applicant was engaged as a substitute Extra Departmental Mail Carrier (GDS Mail Carrier) from August 7, 2001, to September 27, 2004, under the Bansi Sub Division

He was disengaged in 2004, a move he challenged unsuccessfully through multiple Original Applications and High Court Writ Petitions, where his claim for regularization was repeatedly rejected due to the lack of a proper advertisement during his initial appointment

The applicant filed the present OA seeking to quash a reasoned order dated February 24, 2025, which rejected his claim for alternative employment

He alleged discrimination under Article 14, arguing that a similarly situated person, Respondent No. 6 (Atul Chandra Pandey), was regularized in 2010

The respondents maintained that the applicant was a mere "stop-gap" substitute and that Respondent No. 6 was appointed following a formal notification in 2009, which the applicant failed to apply for

1. Whether the denial of regularization and alternative employment to the applicant was discriminatory or arbitrary in light of the appointment granted to Respondent No. 6.

2. Whether there exists a legal provision or rule for the regularization of substitute GDS employees.

3. Whether the Gazette Notification dated February 27, 2004, provides a right to absorption for the applicant.

The court applied the GDS (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2001, specifically Rule 4(3), which empowers the competent authority to review and cancel irregular engagements

the principle that there is no provision in the service rules for the regularization of substitute employees who were not recruited through a prescribed selection process involving public advertisement

Sections 20 and 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, regarding the exhaustion of remedies and limitation

the Gazette Notification dated February 27, 2004, noting it applied to PA/SAs (regular departmental employees) rather than GDS substitutes

The Tribunal observed that the applicant’s service history was characterized by intermittent "substitute arrangements" rather than regular GDS employment

The court noted that previous litigations had already attained finality, consistently finding that the applicant’s initial engagement lacked a formal advertisement or regular selection process

In addressing the plea of discrimination, the Tribunal found that the applicant and Respondent No. 6 were not similarly situated at the time of the latter's regular appointment; Respondent No. 6 had applied pursuant to a formal 2009 notification, whereas the applicant had failed to submit any such application

Consequently, the court held that the applicant could not claim parity for a recruitment process he did not participate in

The Tribunal further clarified that the 2004 Gazette Notification cited by the applicant was irrelevant as it did not cover GDS substitutes

The court answered the issues by affirming that there is no rule for the regularization of substitutes and that no discrimination occurred

the Tribunal allowed that the respondent department might consider the applicant for future substitute or casual requirements if such a need arises

All pending Miscellaneous Applications were disposed of accordingly