1 OA NO.1437/2017/CAT//BANGALORE

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/001437/2018

DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2019

HON’BLE DR.K.B.SURESH …MEMBER(J) HON’BLE SHRI C.V. SANKAR …MEMBER(A)

Smt. Sakkubai A. Badiger, Age : 30 years, W/o. Devendra Chandrappa Pattar Working as : GDS BPM Mugalihal B.O A/W SO, Bailhongal Sub Division, Postal Division, Residing at Mugalihal village, Belgaum District … Applicant (By Shri.P.Kamaleshan) Vs. 1. Union of , Reptd by Director General of Posts, Ministry of Communication, Department of post, Dak Bhavan, New Delhi – 110 001.

2. Post Master General, N.K. Region, Dharwad – 580 001. 3. Chief Post Master General, Circle, Bangalore – 560 001. 4. Senior Superintendent of Post offices, Belgaum Postal Division, Belgaum – 590 001. …Respondents

(By Standing Counsel Shri M.V. Rao for the respondents)

O R D E R (ORAL) 2 OA NO.1437/2017/CAT//BANGALORE

HON’BLE DR.K.B.SURESH …MEMBER(J)

Heard. The applicant who was working continuously from 2010 till now is before us. The crux of the issues is available in our order in OA.No. 1319/2014, which was disposed of vide order dated 01.07.2015, which we quota:

ORDER (ORAL) HON’BLE DR K.B.SURESH, MEMBER (J) Heard. The applicant is a daughter, and is married at the time of demise of her father who was GDS BPM, Mugalihal Post office. The respondents would say that the applicant is married and living with her husband separately. But it appears that applicant’s father passed away on 28.06.2010 but the very next day on 29.06.2010, the applicant was engaged as substitute in accordance with the rules. It is agreed by both the parties that a time limit of one or two days was granted in between the successive appointment and the fact remains that she had served as GDS BPM for more than five years. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent relies on judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka which he had produced, wherein, almost a similar case was taken. The applicant would say that there are distinction in this matter which needed to be taken up. The deceased Government employee has two children, one is the daughter, the applicant and other is son, the son is physically handicapped with a high degree of disability that he cannot even stand. Therefore, he is not competent to get an employment under the Disability Act and specially under Section 47 of the said act. Certain parameters are prescribed by Government so that a special consideration awaits such people. But the respondents would claim that such may not be the case as the applicant is not a handicapped person, but is a protector, evidently he has no other person to protect him and deceased Government employee's aged wife. Therefore it seems to us, it is appropriate that under the provisos of said act the applicant may be considered as a person protecting and caring for handicapped. The rules on substitute arrangement, the department has issued a guideline which is extracted here:- “Substitute Arrangement – guidelines Kindly refer to this office letter no. 17-115/2001-GDS, dated 21.10.2002 regarding substitute/provisional arrangements in place of regular Gramin Dak Sevaks. 2. The above instructions broadly envisage inter-alia that: i) No ineligible person should be engaged as substitute ii) Such arrangements should not continue for long periods iii) Before resorting to substitute arrangements the option of combination of duties should be explored and if such arrangement is found to be unavoidable it should be ensured 3 OA NO.1437/2017/CAT//BANGALORE

by the appointing authority that a person engaged as substitute possesses the prescribed qualifications iv) Continuation of substitute arrangement beyond 180 days at a stretch may be allowed by the next higher authority only in exceptional cases where action has been initiated for making regular appointment if justified on work load and financial norms v) No substitute arrangement shall continue for one year. If it is unavoidable to continue substitute arrangement beyond one year, approval of the Head of the Circle will be necessary. 3. Similar instructions were issued in the said letter in respect of provisional appointments also. Member (P) has desired to obtain compliance of above said instructions from all circles. 4. I would be grateful if you could kindly confirm whether the above instructions are being followed in letter and spirit while resorting to substitute/provisional arrangements.” 3. In paragraph 11 of the circular (DG(P) No.17-115/2001-GDS dated 27.10.2002) it is stated that:-

“11. In cases where the incumbent dies in harness there is no objection to a dependent being allowed to function on interim basis provided the dependent fulfills the qualifications/relaxed qualification applicable for post fallen vacant? This may only be resorted to if arrangement by combination of duties is not feasible. However, in such case also such interim appointment should not exceed one year and every effort should be made to take a final view within that time frame. It also needs to be clearly stipulated that such provisional appointment does not entitle the dependent to claim for the post unless his/her case for compassionate appointment is approved by the Circle Relaxation Committee”. Therefore, the elements of this consideration are, the applicant must be held to be qualified, that she had performed satisfactorily on each of the sectors of the employment and the need was felt to continue her on the basis of her performance as otherwise she would not have been continued for five years and there was no possibility of a combination appointment to be made based on the legal situations available regarding performance of duties. Therefore, eligibility of the applicant may not be in question contends the applicant.

3. Then in paragraph 12 of the same circular, it is mentioned that:-

"12. The extent provisions provide for a provisional appointee to be placed on a waiting list for being considered for a regular appointment after he/she has completed three years of continuous employment. To avoid prolongation of such provisional appointments, approval of the next higher authority should be taken in respect of all provisional appointment exceeding 180 and where the period exceeds 4 OA NO.1437/2017/CAT//BANGALORE

one year express approval of the Head of the Region/circle, as the case may be, would be necessary. Where the regular incumbent is not reinstated, immediate action must be taken to regularize the regularly selected provisional appointee against the said post without resorting to fresh recruitment.” 4. In paragraph 13 it is mentioned that if any of the above rules are to be violated, the strict action will be taken against the concerned officials. Therefore, being official act we will presume that in good faith and in public interest, it might probably the applicant's services were in tune in the public interest and very satisfactory, that must be the reason that she was allowed to continue for more than 5 years. In Annexure A5 which is the enquiry report by the respondents it is indicated that after the death of her father, the applicant had started living in the family house looking after the family. Therefore the elements of consideration which went into the Hon'ble High Court's order and this case are entirely different. 5. Therefore, what would appear to be the issues involved in Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers' Union vs. Union of India, reported in (1991) 1 SCC 619 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Directive Principles and the fundamental rights are to be harmoniously construed. In Keshavananda Bharati Sripadgalvaru vs. State of Kerala reported in (1973) 4 SCC 225, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the object of Directive Principles is to embody the concept of a welfare State. In Article 38(2) “The state shall, in particular, strive to minimise the inequalities in income, and endeavour to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities”. Therefore, what is the concept of equality before law in such a situation it had been explained by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nair Service Society vs. State of Kerala reported in AIR 2007 SC 2891 as “it has many facets and is a dynamic concept” the law seeking to achieve the said purpose is to be interpreted not only on articles 14, 16 but also having regard to combination of laws. In charan Singh vs. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1997 SC 1052 Hon'ble Apex Court held that in similar circumstances economic empowerment of weaker sections must be ensured by judicial introduction.

6. In Article 39 (a) constitution determined “that the citizens, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means of livelihood” in Dharwad District P.W.D Literate Daily Wage Employees' Association vs. State of Karnataka reported in (1990) 2 SCC 396, the Hon'ble Apex Court held: 1. The Authority should take a broad view. 2. In ascertaining whether any differences are of practical importance, the authority should take an equally broad approach, for the very concept of similar work implies differences in detail. These small difference, however, should not defeat a claim of equality on trivial grounds. 3. One should look at the duties actually performed and not at those theoretically possible. Therefore, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that when matters for 5 OA NO.1437/2017/CAT//BANGALORE

employment are concerned the assessment of the performance of the duty should be on a broader perspective, mere continuation of the applicant deholes the limitation prescribed in the rules in fact the satisfaction of the authorities of the quantum of work and the quality of work performed by the applicant, in such case it is a general public interest which must be the overriding effect. What must be the rational ground in assessing the work of a person other than the benefit to be granted to the public at large, if the public at large is satisfied only then the applicant could have been considered for an extended period as this. Therefore, the effect of the approach of the Hon'ble Apex Court is more effective in this matter than in the case which had been explained earlier.

7. But the respondents had taken a case that this will constitute a back door entry as provided under Uma devi's case. But then the compassionate appointment had been taken out of the ambit of Uma devis's case by the Constitutional Bench itself and therefore, that may not be very relevant here. But then the respondents have raised a case of Debika Guha vs. Union of India reported in (2000) 9 SCC 416 held that “substitutes have no legal claim merely on the basis of having worked continuously and if there are cases where the substitutes have worked for a longer period, it is for the department to consider the same as to whether there was a proper case for absorption or not and pass appropriate orders.” This we think more relevant to the issue. The respondents are right in thinking that the matter must be remitted back to the respondents to decide afresh. But then on the basis of the broad approach and policy of the Hon'ble Apex Court, therefore, the elements of the consideration shall be:

1.1.1.1. Whether the work of the applicant was satisfactory or not? (prima facie it should be satisfactory, because of the continuation) 1.1.1.2. The other judgements of the Hon'ble Apex Court mentioned in the reply may not be relevant as this is about not having under gone the process of due selection. 8. But then that is not applicable to the compassionate appointment like this, wherein the elements of consideration is different but since Paragragh 11 stipulates that the person who is appointed as a peon must be qualified and having been appointed it must be presumed that the applicant was qualified, so if the applicant was qualified the only issue which may arise even in a regular appointment is that she had not gone through the competitive selection process. But then the elements of such competitive selection process undergone by her in repeated selection in all these 5 years which apparently had happened every 3 months. Therefore there must have been about 20 opportunities for the respondents to determine the qualification of the repeated process of the applicant before confirming her on every occasion. Therefore this may not be a ground for rejecting her case for being kept in a waiting list according to the rules. Therefore, we quash the impugned orders and remit the matter back to the respondents to consider on a broader perspective as to whether the applicant would be 6 OA NO.1437/2017/CAT//BANGALORE

entitled to be kept in the waiting list as said in the rules. This shall be done within next 3 months and an appropriate speaking order shall be passed. OA is disposed of as above. No order as to costs.

2. The matter was taken up in challenge in W.P. No.100812/2016 and vide order dated 15.12.2016 the Hon’ble High Court dismissed the writ Petition. We quote from the order:

ORDER The petitioners have challenged the legality of the order dated 01.07.2015, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (‘CAT’, for short), Bengaluru Bench, whereby the learned Tribunal has quashed the selection and appointment of respondent No.2, and has left it to the discretion of the petitioner to consider, on broader perspective, whether the respondent No.1 would be entitled to kept in the waiting list, as prescribed by the relevant Rules or not.

2. Briefly the facts of the case are, that the father of respondent No.1, Smt. Sakkubai A. Badiger, was working as a Grameen Dak Sevak and Branch Post Master (‘GDS-BPM’, for short) at Mugalihal Branch Office. While in harness, he expired on 28.06.2010. The mother of the respondent No.1requested for an appointment of respondent No.1 on compassionate ground, although the respondent No.1 was a married daughter. By order dated 14.07.2010, she was granted an appointment as a stop-gap arrangement. She continued to work for five years.

3. During this period, her plea to be appointed on compassionate ground was rejected. Therefore, she filed an Original Application before the learned Tribunal, namely O.A. No.383/2013. The learned Tribunal directed the petitioners to hold a fresh enquiry and to consider whether the respondent No.1 could be appointed on a compassionate ground or not. Meanwhile on 01.07.2014 the Superintendent of Post Office, petitioner No.1, issued a Notification for filling up the post of GDS-BPM in the Mugalihal village. After the completion of selection process, by order dated 04.08.2014, respondent No.2, Mr. Anil Kumar, was appointed on the said post. Since the respondent No.1 was aggrieved by the appointment order dated 04.08.2014, she filed another Original Application, namely O.A. No.1319/2014, before the learned Tribunal. By order dated 01.07.2015, the learned Tribunal allowed the Original Application in the terms entioned hereinabove. Hence, this petition before this Court.

4. In order to decide this petition, it is pertinent to quote the operative portion of the impugned order. The operative portion is hereunder :

“Therefore, we quash the impugned orders and remit the matter back to the respondents to consider on a broader perspective as to whether the applicant would be entitled to be kept in the waiting list as laid in the rules. This shall be done within next 3 months and an appropriate speaking order shall be passed. OA is disposed of as above. No order as to costs.”

5. A bare perusal of the operative portion clearly reveals that the learned Tribunal had left it to the discretion of the petitioners to consider the case of respondent No.1, in broader perspective, and to see if she could be kept in the waiting list and to pass a reasoned order.

6. In the light of the operative portion, this Court has asked a specific query to the learned counsel for the petitioners as to how the petitioners could be aggrieved by the directions issued 7 OA NO.1437/2017/CAT//BANGALORE by the learned Tribunal? To this query, the learned counsel submits that the petitioners are aggrieved by the fact that the selection process, which culminated in the appointment order dated 04.08.2014, has been set aside by the learned Tribunal. The stand being taken by the learned counsel is rather curious, for the petitioners cannot be aggrieved by the setting aside of the selection process. At best, the person who has been selected and appointed, namely Mr. Anil Kumar could be the only person aggrieved by the order dated 01.07.2015. Therefore, the stand being taken by the learned counsel is clearly untenable.

7. Since a discretion has been bestowed by the learned Tribunal, since a direction has been issued by the learned Tribunal to the petitioners, the petitioners are duty bound to carry out the direction. But instead of considering the case of respondent No.1, in broader perspective, the petitioners, for reasons best known to them, have approached this Court. However, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition is frivolous one, as the directions issued by the learned Tribunal do not adversely affect the interest of the petitioners.

8. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in the present writ petition. It is, hereby, dismissed.”

3. Thereafter following the order of the Hon’ble High Court, an order dated

21.6.2017 (Annexure A-7) was issued, which we quote:

DEPARTMENT OF POSTS OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, BELAGAVI DIVISION, BELAGAVI 590001 NO.BII/BPM Magalihal BO/2017 dated Belagavi 590001 the 21.06.2017.

Read the following:

1. Hon’ble CAT judgment dated 01.07.2015 in OA.1319/2014 filed by Smt S.A. Badiger. 2. Hon’ble High Court Judgment dated 15.12.2016 of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench in WP No.100812/2016 filed by the Department against the orders dated 01.07.2015 of CAT Bangalore in OA. No.1319/2014 filed by Smt Sakubai A Badiger-Reg. 3. Co Letter No. LC/2-154/2014 dated 20.01.2017 and RO letter No. NKR/LC/HC/1331/2015 dated 08.03.2017. 4. RO letter No.NKR/LC/HC/1331/2015 dated 25.05.2017. ……

This is regarding judgment in Writ Petition No. 100812/2016 filed by the department against the orders dated 01.07.2015 of CAT Bangalore in OA 1319/2014 filed by Smt S.A. Badiger, D/o Late Sri A.K. Badiger, Ex BPM, Magalihal BO a/w SO.

As per the directions given by the Hon’ble CAT, Bangalore and Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, the issue has been re-examined.

Brief history of the case: 8 OA NO.1437/2017/CAT//BANGALORE

1. The post of BPM, Mugalihal BO a/w Yaragatti SO fell vacant on 28.06.2010 due to death of Shri Arjun K. Badiger, GDSBPM Magalihal BO. Stop gap arrangement was made against the said post, then the married daughter of deceased Smt S.A. Badiger was managing the work during the period but purely as a stop gap arrangement. The married daughter of deceased GDS, Smt A.S. Badiger , applied for engagement as GDS on compassionate grounds. The case was considered and rejected by the Compassionate Relaxation Committee (CRC) communicated vide CO letter No. R&E/2-6/GDS/CRC/2011 dated 03.01.2012 received under RO Endt No. NKR/STA-3/2016/Comp-Appt/2011 dated 10.01.2012 as she was not fully dependent on the deceased.

2. Hence notification for filling up the said post was issued vide this office memo No. BII/GDSBPM/Magalihal BO/2013 dated 27.03.2013. Aggrieved the applicant approached Hon’ble CAT challenging the notification issued by SPOs, Belgaum to fill up the post vide notification dtd 27.3.2013 in the Hon’ble CAT, Bangalore Bench under OA. No.383/2013. The Hon’ble CAT vide their order dtd. 4.2.2014 in OA.No. 383/2013 has directed the department to continue the selection process under the notification dtd 27.3.2013 and issue order to the selected candidate. It further directed the department to conduct enquiry as to whether the applicant was residing with her father as on the date of death of her father and whether she was dependent of the family of the deceased.

3. Inquiries made into the facts was reported to RO vide this office latter No.BII/CA/AKB/2010 dated 02.06.2014. In accordance with the directions of the Hon’ble CAT, the case was placed before the Circle Relaxation Committee which met on 30.07.2014. The Committee observed that as per the report of inquiry officer, the applicant does not come under the purview of ‘dependent family member’ for the purpose of compassionate appointment as per the scheme and she does not satisfy the condition 12(i) of DOPT OM dtd 30.05.2013. The committee examined the request of the applicant and rejected the case vide Circle office Memo no.R&E/2- 6/712/12 dtd 1.9.2014.

4. Aggrieved by the decision of CRC communicated in Memo No.R&E/2- 6/712/12 dtd 1.09.2014, Smt Sakkubai A Badiger (Applicant) filed an application before Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench under Original Application No.170/00069/2015 for quashing the Memo No. R&E/2-6/712/12 dtd 1.09.2014, issued by CPMG, Bangalore and issue directions to the respondents to reconsider the case of the applicant for compassionate appointment and the Hon’ble CAT, Bangalore vide order dated 29.01.2016 dismissed the OA No.170/00069/2015.

5. Selection process for the post of GDSBPM, Mugalihal BO under the notification dated 27.3.2013 was held on 30.04.2013 and selection panel of candidates was drawn on 30.04.2013. Action to complete the exercise of engagement of selected candidate within the validity period of one year i.e. by 30.04.3014, could not be completed. Hence fresh notification for filling up the post was issued on 1.7.2014 vide memo No. BII/Mugalihal BO/2014 dated 01.07.2014 reserving the post for OBC and selection process was conducted on 4.8.2014. Sri Anilkumar who has secured highest percentage of marks in 9 OA NO.1437/2017/CAT//BANGALORE

SSLC was selected.

6. Then, Smt Sakkubai A Badiger has challenged the selection of candidates in selection meeting held on 04.08.2014 and also notification issued on 1.7.2014 in the Hon’ble CAT, Bangalore Bench under OANo. 1319/2014. Meanwhile it was directed by CPMG, Karnataka Circle Letter No LC/2/154/2014 dated 27.10.2014 to maintain “status Quo” as per the interim order of the Hon’ble CAT in OA No.1319/2014 filed by S.A. Badiger. Hence the further process in the selection case of BPM, Magalihal BO was kept pending.

7. The Hon’ble CAT, Bangalore pronounced its final order in OA 1319/2014 on 01.07.2015. Further the RO Dharwad filed a Writ Petition before Hon’ble High Court, Dharwad in WP No 100812/2016 (S-CAT). The Hon’ble High Court has granted an interim order of stay on 27.06.2016 in WP No 100812/2016 against the orders dated 01.07.2015 of Hon’ble CAT, Bangalore in OA 1319/2014.

8. Further the writ petition has been dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court on15.12.2016. The copy of the order has been received from PMG, NK Region Dharwad vide letter No.NKR/LC/ HC/1331/2015 dated 08.03.2017alongwith direction to take further necessary action with court orders in co-ordination with CO (Staff) section.

9. The Hon’ble CAT in its final order in OA 1319 dated has dirted (Extract reproduced below),

“Therefore this may not be a ground for rejecting her case for being kept in a waiting list according to the rules. Therefore, we quash the impugned orders and remit the matter back to the respondents to consider on a broader perspective as to whether the applicant would be entitled to be kept in the waiting list as said in the rules. This shall be done within next 3 months and an appropriate speaking order shall be passed. OA is disposed of as above.”

10. In compliance to the directions issued by Hon’ble CAT in the above OA, the whole issue has been re-examined.

The Hon’ble CAT has directed that her case “whether the applicant could be kept in waiting list as said in the rules” needs consideration. In this regard the extract of instructions/ guidelines issued vide Directorate letter No19- 14/2010 –GDS dated 25.06.2010 is reproduced below:

“It has been decided that in all cases of future engagement of all categories GDS including the cases which are currently in process and selection not finalized, a select panel of the candidates may be drawn based on the sole criteria of merit. The Panel should be operated in the event of the following contingencies: 10 OA NO.1437/2017/CAT//BANGALORE

(iv) Refusal by the meritorious candidate.

(v) Resignation by the 1st candidate even after joining within one year.

(iv) Review made by the higher authority within one year.

The selected panel will be in the proportion of 5 candidates for one vacancy i.e., the selected panel will be valid for one year from the date of finalization and after that it would lost its validity”. Considering the instructions contained in the above cited Directorate letter, a panel of only five top meritorious candidates is to be prepared. When the applications for the post of Maglihal BO a/w Yaragatti SO was called for on 01.07.2014, Smt Sakkubai A Badiger who has applied for the said post has scored 48.60% in SSCL and does not figure in the panel list.

The marks scored by five meritorious candidates included in panel list are as below:

SL NO Name of the candidate S/S Percentage of marks scored in SSLC 1 Anil Kumar S 87.52 2 S.V Gundi 87.04 3 Siddappa S Hanabar 82.08 4 M Y 78.88 5 Sachinkumar Sanadi 77.28

Therefore as per the Directorate orders cited above Smt Sakkubai A Badiger cannot be included in the panel or the waiting list.

Further the case has also been examined in the light of Directorate instructions contained in the DG P&T letter No 43-4/77/Pen dated 18.05.79 and No. 19-/99-34/ED & Trg dated 30.12.1999. In para 2, Section 04 (Method of Recruitment) of Swamy’s Compilation of Service Rules for Postal Gramin Dak Sevak 2010 addition, it is noted, “ Efforts should be made to give alternative employment to ED agents who are appointed provisionally and subsequently discharged from service due to administrative reasons, if at the time of discharge they had put in not less than three years’ continuous approved service. In such cases, their names should be included in the waiting list of ED agents discharged from service” It is seen that the request for compassionate appointment for Smt S A Badiger does not fit within the ambit of above instructions also as she has not been engaged continuously for three year and her services stands terminated from the said post on the following dates.

26.09.2010 20.11.2011 27.01.2013 20.04.2014 12.07.2015 08.10.2016 11 OA NO.1437/2017/CAT//BANGALORE

09.10.2016 21.12.2010 12.02.2012 21.04.2013 13.07.2014 11.11.2015 20.03.2011 06.05.2012 21.07.2013 12.10.2014 10.01.2016 05.06.2011 04.08.2012 20.10.2013 11.01.20115 08.04.2016

09.04.2016

10.04.2016 20.08.2011 27.10.2012 19.01.2014 11.04.2015 09.07.2017

28.10.2012 10.07.2016

Further she has not been appointed on provisional basis by observing regular recruitment procedures. Hence her case cannot be considered.

Therefore I, the undersigned having gone through the judgment of Hon’ble CAT Bangalore dated 01.07.2015 in OA No.1319/2014 and Hon’ble High Court Judgment dated 15.12.2016 in WP No 100812/2016 (S-CAT) and provisions of the rulings/ instructions received from the DGP, New Delhi and as already discussed in preceding para’s find that the applicant Smt Sakkubai A Badiger does not fulfil any of the conditions/ parameters prescribed by the department and is therefore not eligible to be considered for keeping her in the waiting list.”

4. The ground taken is that she had not been engaged continuously for three years and her services had been terminated from the said post on several dates, and of course reappointed.

5. The purpose of granting residency period of three years to be kept in waiting list is to avoid injustice. After the best part of a person’s life had been exhausted in the service of Government entity, it is not proper for the Government or any authority by saying that after having taken the best of them, then they cannot be discharged.

6. Therefore, on the basis of these findings, the contentions raised by the respondents in the speaking order will not lie under law.

7. At this point of time Shri M.V. Rao, learned counsel for the respondents 12 OA NO.1437/2017/CAT//BANGALORE raises another question that applicant’s SSLC marks is found to be slightly low, in comparison with several others who should have been directly appointed, that is neither here nor there. SSLC marks is no more and will not be of any use at all, as the applicant is an insitu candidate, who is already in. Therefore, this limitation of selection will not be applicable to her because her selection is in the past. Object of merit as desired by the examination, merit is good, but by virtue of residence for all these years, it will not be proper for anybody to throw out an employee after nine years of service.

8. OA is therefore allowed. Applicant will be kept in the waiting list as usual under law and will be regularized as usual under law in due course. No costs.

(C.V. SANKAR) (DR.K.B.SURESH) MEMBER(A) MEMBER(J) vmr 13 OA NO.1437/2017/CAT//BANGALORE

Annexures referred to by the Applicant in OA No.170/01437/2018

1. Annexure A1 : Copy of Hon’ble CAT, Bangalore order dated 4.2.2014 in OA.383/2013. 2. Annexure A2 : Copy of Assistant Supdt. Belgaum letter dated 30.5.2014. 3. Annexure A3 : Copy of Supdt. Of Post Offices, Belgaum letter dated 2.6.2014. 4. Annexure A4 : Copy of PMG, Dharwad letter dated 24.6.2014. 5. Annexure A5 : Copy of CAT, Bangalore order dated 7.1.2015 in OA.No.1319/2014. 6. Annexure A6 : Copy of High Court of Karnataka , Dharwad Bench order dated 15.12.2016 in WP. 100812/16(S-CAT). 7. Annexure A7 : Copy of SPO, Belgaum letter dated 216.2017. 8. Annexure A8 : Copy of SPO, Belgaum letter dated 29.8.2018.

Annexures referred to by the Respondents in the Reply

1. Annexure R-1 : Copy of representation of the applicant dated 29.6.2010. 2. Annexure R-2 : Copy of letter dated 2.6.2014. 3. Annexure R-3 : Copy of order dated 18.11.2013 in WP.No.24557/2013 (S-CAT). 4. Annexure R-4 : Copy of TRCA aid to Smt Sakkubai A Badiger. 5. Annexure R-5 : Copy of letter dated 25.6.2010.

***************** 14 OA NO.1437/2017/CAT//BANGALORE