Heard Mr.T.A.Ebenezer, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.D.Saravanan, learned counsel for the first respondent department.
2.This writ petition has been filed, challenging the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.819 of 2010 dated 13.08.2010. The petitioner sought for a direction to the respondents to regularise his service as GDS BPM in the Pathai Post Office, by considering his representation dated 28.06.2010 before finalizing the recruitment, which was notified vide memo dated 01.06.2010.
3.The petitioner's case is that he has passed S.S.L.C. and has worked as GDS BPM for 830 days as Substitute from 28.01.1998 to 01.07.2009 and the said appointment was approved by the higher authorities. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner has thereafter continued to work and as on 28.06.2010, he claims to have worked for more than 1118 days. In these circumstances, the petitioner sought for being absorbed to the post of GDS BPM without reference to the notification dated 01.06.2010.
4.The Tribunal, taking note of the fact that applications have been called for for the said post, directed the petitioner to submit an application. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
5.We have elaborately heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent department.
6.Admittedly, the petitioner was only working as Substitute and even though, he claims to have worked for more than 830 days, that itself will not give him any right to be regularly appointed. Recruitment of the said post is covered by a separate set of rules and under Section IV, the method of recruitment has been prescribed. We have carefully perused the said rules, which does not provide for any regularization of a person, who worked as a Substitute. However, sub rule 17 in Section IV speaks of provisional appointment of Extra Department Agents. It is not clear as to whether the said rule would apply to the case on hand, especially, when the petitioner himself admits that he was working as Substitute. Nevertheless, the petitioner having made a representation to the respondent department, we deem it appropriate to direct the respondent department to consider the representation dated 28.06.2010 on merits and in accordance with law and pass a speaking order, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7.With the above observation and direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
To:
.