- (1.) Heard. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel for the rival parties.
(2.) All these writ petitions, filed by the Director Postal Services, Nagpur and others, arose out of the common judgment dated 9.10.2009, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, Camp at Nagpur, by which the Original Applications filed by the respective respondents in these writ petitions were allowed in terms of paragraph No.8 of the Original Applications, meaning thereby that the Central Administrative Tribunal directed reinstatement with payment of T.R.C.A. from the date of termination till date of reinstatement and continuity of service.
(3.) In support of the writ petitions, the learned Counsel for the petitioners made the following submissions. (1) Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2001 are statutory in character and the Tribunal erred in treating the same as mere departmental instructions. (2) Rule 4 (C) (3) of the said Rules empower the superior authority to call for the records for appointments of G.D.S., if there is a material irregularity or illegality in the matter of recruitment and the Director of Postal Services being the superior authority over the appointing authority, the appointments were rightly reviewed and having noticed material irregularity after compliance of principles of natural justice, the services of the respondents were terminated. (3) The Tribunal committed an error in holding that there was no violation of the Rules in the matter of criteria for selection inasmuch as preference was required to be given in accordance with the higher percentage of marks as per examination in all the cases and that being so the candidates having higher marks were not appointed and therefore, there was violation of the Rule regarding recruitment and therefore, Reviewing Authority had a power to correct the said error the same being material irregularity. (4) The Tribunal should not have decided all the Original Applications together since the facts and circumstances were different in different cases. (5) The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others...Versus...Bikash Kuanar, 2006 8 SCC 192, relied upon by the Tribunal, was not applicable, as the facts in the said case were clearly distinguishable. In the said decision itself the Supreme Court held that if the mistake is committed in passing the order, the same may be rectified. (6) The Tribunal committed an error in observing in paragraph No.18 of its judgment that the submission regarding abolition of posts made before it was oral and no documents were filed before the Tribunal in support of the said submission. In fact, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioners as now disclosed in the additional affidavit of Ramesh Abhiman Bhavate, dated 16.8.2010, filed before this Court vide paragraph No.9 thereof documents, namely, communication dated 11.8.2003 circulated by letter dated 12.09.2003 (Document No.7) were filed in Original Application No.2249/2004, filed by Shyamrao Damdu Taiwade and had sought permission to file those documents, showing abolition of posts. Therefore, the Tribunal erred in not considering the said documents in correct perspective and in the alternative, the learned Counsel prayed for remand of the matters to the Tribunal for reconsideration.;