Judgment:
ORAL ORDER
(As per Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Lakshmana Reddy, Vice-Chairman)
Heard Mr. S. Rama Krishna Rao, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. G. Jaya Prakash Babu, learned senior central government standing counsel for the respondents, who took notice on behalf of the respondents.
2. This application is filed seeking for a declaration that the inaction on the part of the respondents to appoint the applicant in the post of GDSBPM, Porandla BO, a/w. Manakonduru SO, Karimnagar Division, is arbitrary, illegal, unwarranted, misconceived and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and also to set aside the impugned notification dated 19.06.2009 and also for a consequential direction to the 3rd respondent to consider the case of the applicant for appointment as GDS/BPM, Porandla BO.
3. Relevant facts in brief are as follows:
The applicant belongs to SC community and he passed S.S.C. (X class) in the year 1986. When the earlier incumbent in the post EDBPM, Porandla was posted as Postman, Metpally SO, the vacancy of EDBPM, Porandla was notified and the applicant applied for the same and he was selected. The applicant was also imparted theoretical training from 21.01.1991 to 22.01.1991 and practical training from 23.01.1991 to 24.01.1991 by Sub-Postmaster, Mukharampura Sub-Post Office. Before giving appointment order to the applicant as EDBPM, Porandla, the earlier incumbent who had been promoted and posted as Postman, Metpally SO did not wish to continue in the promoted post and wanted to come back to his earlier post and the department considered his request and posted him as EDBPM, Porandla BO. As there was no vacancy, the applicant could not be given appointment. Now, the said earlier incumbent retired and the post of EDBPM, Porandla again fell vacant in May 2009. The department notified the same on 19.06.09 inviting applications for the said post. According to the applicant, he submitted representation against the said notification to the Chief Postmaster General, A.P. Circle, Hyderabad on 16.07.09 marking a copy to the 3rd respondent explaining his case in detail and requesting them to appoint him in the vacancy that arose now, instead of issuing fresh notification. According to him, as there was no response from them, he too applied for the post in pursuance of the notification dated 19.6.2009 and he also attended for verification of certificates on 5.8.2009 and on that date he also explained to R-3 about his earlier selection for the said post. But the 3rd respondent did not consider the plea of the applicant and continued the interviews without considering his case. As the 3rd respondent is proceeding with the selection for the post of EDBPM, Porandla BO, the applicant came forward with the present application contending that as he has already been selected in accordance with the then existing rules and he was given training, both practical and theoretical, for the specified post of EDBPM, Porandla BO, he ought to have been posted as EDBPM, Porandla BO on the eve of the retirement of the earlier incumbent and the respondents ought not to have notified the said post.
4. It is not disputed that the applicant did not challenge the inaction on the part of the respondents when he was not given appointment to the post of EDBPM, Porandla BO in the year 1991 after his due selection. After a period of 18 years, now he wanted to enforce his earlier selection. Further, the applicant did not choose to challenge the impugned notification dated 19.06.2009 immediately after it was notified though the applicant was well aware of the said notification. On the other hand, he too applied for the said post in pursuance of the said notification and attended the interview. Having applied in pursuance of the notification and having attended the interview, the applicant cannot now turn around and challenge the very same notification in pursuance of which he too applied and appeared for the interview. In our considered view, he is estopped from questioning the said notification. When once the notification is issued and the process is commenced, the respondents are bound to complete the process in accordance with the rules and the terms and conditions mentioned in the notification. Otherwise, those who have appeared for the interview and those who are likely to be selected will challenge the action of the respondents in not completing the selection in pursuance of the notification already notified. Therefore, in our considered view, the applicant cannot now seek appointment for a post after a period of 18 years on the basis of his earlier selection in the year 1991. The moment the earlier incumbent was given posting as EDBPM, Porandla BO, the operation of the selection of the applicant for the said post is deemed to have come to an end. Therefore, such a selection cannot be enforced after a period of 18 years. More over, after the selection process commenced after due notification, the applicant cannot challenge the same as he himself applied in pursuance of the notification and attended for the interview.
5. However, for no fault of the applicant, he could not be given appointment though he was duly selected for the post of EDBPM, Porandla BO in the year 1991, we are of the view that he can submit a representation to the Chief Postmaster General, AP Circle requesting to consider his case as and when any vacancy arises at some other place and in the event of submission of such representation, the Chief Postmaster General, AP Circle may consider the request of the applicant. But, so far as the present application is concerned, we are of the considered view that this Tribunal cannot interfere with the selection process commenced in pursuance of the impugned notification at this stage and the application is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merit.
6. Accordingly, O.A. is dismissed at the admission stage itself. There shall be no order as to costs.