Karnataka High Court
Union Of India And Ors vs Arun Jyoti on 7 June, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3679-DB
WP No.200136 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
WRIT PETITION NO.200136 OF 2018 (S-CAT)
BETWEEN:
1. UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY ,
DEPARTMENT OF POSTS
DAK BHAVAN,
NEW DELHI - 110 001.
2. THE POST MASTER GENERAL
NORTH KARNATAKA REGION,
DHARWAD - 580 001.
Digitally signed by 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICER
BASALINGAPPA
SHIVARAJ RAICHUR DIVISION,
DHUTTARGAON
Location: High Court
RAICHUR - 584 101.
Of Karnataka
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SUDHIRSINGH R.VIJAPUR, DSGI)
AND:
ARUN JYOTI
W/O VIRUPAKSHI,
AGED:26 YEARS,
B.P.M., HOSPET B.O.,
A/W YERMARAS S.O.-584 134.
UNDER RAICHUR H.O.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3679-DB
WP No.200136 of 2018
RESIDING AT HOSPET VILLAGE,
RAICHUR TALUKA & DIST.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAVINDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH ANNEXURE-C
PASSED BY THE HON'BLE CAT DATED 09.10.2017 IN ORIGINAL
APPLICATION NO.170/00884/2016, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ISSUE ANY OTHER SUITABLE WRIT,
ORDER OR DIRECTION AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT
UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING,
THIS DAY, ASHOK S. KINAGI J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This writ petition is filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 09.10.2017 passed in Original Application No.170/00884/2016 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench (for short, 'the Tribunal').
2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this writ petition are as under;
The respondent, who was the applicant before the Tribunal, was engaged on spot-gap arrangement to the post of GDS BPM Hospet BO under Yeramaras Sub-Post -3- NC: 2024:KHC-K:3679-DB WP No.200136 of 2018 Office under Raichur Division in a vacant post. As the post could not be filled up, immediately on regular basis, the stop-gap arrangement was made by engaging the candidate with clear understanding that the arrangement is purely on a temporary and liable for termination at any time without giving any notice. The purpose behind engaging the candidates on the so called stop gap arrangement is to run the post offices in such times when the regular process for engagement of Gramin Dak Sevaks is delayed for some reasons. This arrangement is purely on temporary basis and does not entitled the candidates for regular engagement/appointment to the GDS posts in this department. The respondent was engaged on the provisional basis.
It is further case of the petitioners that, the petitioner No.3 herein i.e., Superintendent of Post Offices, Raichur Division issued Notification on 27.01.2014 from the candidates of public as well as from Employment Exchange. The selection process was completed and the -4- NC: 2024:KHC-K:3679-DB WP No.200136 of 2018 Selection Committee met on 11.03.2014. As many as 20 applications were received and amongst them, 17 applications were considered for selection and 03 applications were not considered due to various reasons. Employment Exchange did not sponsor any candidates. Out of 17 considered applications, the respondent had also applied for the above post and her application stood at Sl.No.15 of the merit list of candidates considered. But her name was kept in the waiting list. The respondent aggrieved by the in action on the part of the petitioners in not considering her candidature, approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru by filing aforementioned original application.
3. The respondent appeared before the Tribunal and filed statement of objections.
4. The Tribunal after hearing the learned counsel for the parties passed the impugned order. The petitioners aggrieved by the impugned order filed this writ petition.
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3679-DB WP No.200136 of 2018
5. Heard Sri Sudheersing R. Vijapur, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for the petitioners and Sri Ravindra Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
6. Learned Deputy Solicitor General of India submits that, the petitioners have taken several contentions in the statement of objections and all the contentions raised in the written statement are not considered by the Tribunal and further the Tribunal has not applied its mind while passing the impugned order. He would also submit that the petitioners have placed reliance on the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Superintendent of Post Offices, Chikkamagalur Division Vs. Sandeep H.L. in W.P.No.24557/2013, disposed of on 18.11.2013. He submits that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is the outcome of non-application of mind and inasmuch as he submits that the order passed is a non-speaking order. Hence, on these grounds he prays to allow the writ -6- NC: 2024:KHC-K:3679-DB WP No.200136 of 2018 petition and set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the Tribunal to reconsider the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order and submits that the Tribunal was justified in directing the petitioners to consider the case of the respondent in the arising vacancy. Hence, he submits that the Tribunal has applied its mind properly and passed the impugned order. Hence, on these grounds he prays to dismiss the petition.
8. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
9. The only point that would arise for our consideration is:
"Whether the petitioners prove that the Tribunal has passed the impugned order without application of mind and assigning the reasons?"-7-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3679-DB WP No.200136 of 2018
10. Having heard the learned both the counsel, admittedly, the petitioners have filed statement of objection before the Tribunal and raised several issues including the one that the respondent has no right to claim regular posting. The petitioners have also placed reliance on the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sandeep H.L., (supra). The Tribunal without considering the said aspect and without considering the material placed on record by both the parties has passed the impugned order, which is a cryptic order and further the Tribunal has not assigned any reasons. Hence, the impugned order is outcome of non- application of mind and on this ground alone, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the point raised is answered in the Affirmative.
11. In view of the above discussions, we pass the following:
ORDER
i) The writ appeal is allowed. -8-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3679-DB WP No.200136 of 2018
ii) The impugned order dated 09.10.2017 passed in O.A.No.170/00884/2016 dated 09.10.2017 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, is set aside.
iii) The O.A.No.170/00884/2016 is restored on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench.
iv) The Tribunal is requested to dispose of the aforesaid original application after considering the entire material on record and pass a detailed reasoning order.
v) It is made clear that, this Court has not made adjudication on merits in issue.
vi) All the contentions are kept open.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE BL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1 Ct;Vk