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
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3679-DB
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
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3679-DB
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.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3679-DB
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
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3679-DB
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?"
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3679-DB
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.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3679-DB
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
Ct;Vk
