The High Court dismissed a Writ Petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's order allowing the notification for a post reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates. The Court held the Tribunal's decision was correct.
Writ Petition dismissed without costs; miscellaneous petitions closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND
THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS
WRIT PETITION No.17776 OF 2002
ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhabu)
This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed to quash the order, dated 29.07.2002, in Original Application No.1800 of 1999, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), and notification, dated 02.11.1999, issued by the second respondent calling for the applications from the Scheduled Caste candidates to fill up post of Extra Departmental Branch Post Master (for short, ‘EDBPM’), Surepalli, Ramanakhapet Sub-Post Office in Gudivada Division, Krishna District, and to direct the 2nd respondent to fill up the post of EDBPM, Surepalli in Gudivada Division, Krishna District with O.C. candidate.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as learned Assistant Solicitor General, appearing for the respondents.
3. Initially a notification was issued on 12.11.1998 calling for applications from the eligible Scheduled Caste candidates to fill up the post of EDBPM, Surepalli office, Ramanakhapet Sub-Post Office. That notification was challenged by the applicant, vide Original Application No.147 of 1999, before the Tribunal. In its order, dated 26.02.1999, the Tribunal set aside the notification, dated 12.11.1998. Thereafter, another notification was issued on 26.05.1999 inviting applications from eligible Scheduled Caste candidates for selection to the post of EDBPM, Surepalli under Ramanakhapeta Sub-Post Office. Challenging the said notification, dated, 26.05.1999, the applicant filed
Original Application No. 940 of 1999 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by its order, dated 05.08.1999, held that “ the applicant in this O.A. should be informed of the above details in suitably worded letter. After that letter is issued, the respondents are at liberty to process the notification, dated 26.05.1999, in accordance with rules.”
4. As seen from the above order, notification, dated 26.05.1999, has not been set aside and it remains in force. In pursuance of direction given by the Tribunal in its order, dated 05.08.1999, respondents issued another notification, dated 02.11.1999, duly cancelling earlier notification, dated 26.05.1997. This notification was under challenge before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after considering the material on record, held that the Department has to follow the procedure in pursuance of directions given by the Government and dismissed the Original Application.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that four (4) vacancies arose in the year 1998 and the first vacancy of Garapudu was notified for O.C., second vacancy of Eedulamaddali was notified for OBC, third vacancy of Gudipadu was notified for O.C., and fourth vacancy of Surepalli was notified for S.C.; that vacancies were wrongly taken by the respondents, as no vacancy arose in respect of EDBPM, Surepalli, because two persons were placed under suspension, it cannot be considered as a vacancy at all; that the Government instructions have not been followed by the respondents in notifying the vacancies in Surepalli and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order.
6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Solicitor General, appearing for the respondents, contended that no doubt there are two temporary vacancies in Suprepalli; but the persons, against whom enquiry is pending, were removed from service in the year 2001; and that once the notification, dated 26.05.1999, was not set aside by the
Tribunal, necessarily the respondents have to issue fresh notification duly reserving the same for Scheduled Caste candidates.
7. It may be a fact that one vacancy of Garapadu was reserved for O.C., second vacancy of Eedulamaddali was reserved for OBC, third vacancy of Gudipadu was reserved for OC and fourth vacancy of Surepalli was reserved for SC. It is a fact that two vacancies arose in the year 1998. In view of the fact that two persons, who are working as EDBPMs., were placed under suspension, a regular departmental enquiry was ordered against them.
8. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner in view of the fact that departmental enquiry is still pending against two persons, those two vacancies cannot be taken as a permanent vacancies so as to notify the same and therefore, it is illegal. It is a fact that EDBPMs of Garapadu and Eedulamaddali were removed from service in the year 2001 with regard to certain illegalities committed by them. In view of the fact that when a notification, dated 26.05.1999, was issued inviting the applications from the eligible Scheduled Caste candidates to fill up the post of EDBPM, Surepalli, though challenged, it was not set aside. So long as that notification is not under challenge, in pursuance order of the Tribunal, re-notifying the same, cannot be challenged. For that reason, the Tribunal rightly held that the post of EDBPM, Surepalli reserved for S.C, is in accordance with rules, and the instructions issued by the Department. We do not find any illegality in passing the impugned order. Therefore, the Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed, however, in the circumstances, without costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
_______________ (K.C.BHANU,J)
(ANIS,J)
MARCH 03, 2014
YVL
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND
THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS
WRIT PETITION No.17776 OF 2002
03.03.2014
YVL
`1F
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the re-notification of the post of Extra Departmental Branch Post Master reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates was illegal due to pending departmental enquiries.
Whether the Tribunal correctly held that the post reserved for SC was in accordance with rules and departmental instructions.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Petitioner (Original Applicant)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench
Second Respondent (Department)
K.C.Bhanu
Anis
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
