- (1.) When the office of the Extra Departmental Branch Postmaster of Duggunta Branch Office, Nellore District had temporarily fallen vacant by reason of the suspension of the incumbent pending regular enquiry, the petitioner was appointed on 24th January, 1978, in that vacancy. But no written order appointing the petitioner as the Extra-Departmental Branch Postmaster, Duggunta Branch Office was issued by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Gudur, who is the, competent Authority to appoint. In the year 1981, the petitioner while working" in that vacancy, applied to the Superintendent of Post Offices, Gudur for a regular order of appointment to be given to her so that she might be able to make an application to the Postal Department for appointment to Departmental Class IV post. The writ petitioner alleged that in that connection the second respondent, the Superintendent of Post Offices, Gudur by name Mr. Janakiraman asked the petitioner to see him in his chambers alone at about 8 P.M. on 10th December, 1981, with some information required to be examined before issuing regular orders of appointment and that the petitioner accordingly went to the chambers of the second respondent at 8 P.M. on 10th December, 1981, accompanied by her relatives. It was alleged in the writ petition that the second respondent prevented the petitioner's relatives from entering his chambers and started misbehaving with her. It was said that the petitioner had walked out of the second respondent's chambers. Within a few days thereafter on 14th December, 1981, the petitioner complained to the Regional Director of Postal Services, Andhra Pradesh Southern Region, Kurnool, setting out these facts and requesting him to enquire into the misconduct of the second respondent and to do justice to her. Strangely, the second respondent having come to know of that complaint, wrote a letter to the petitioner on 23rd December, 1981, directing her to submit evidence to him in support of her representation made on 14th December, 1981, to the Regional Director of Postal Services, Andhra Pradesh Southern Region, Kurnool. The petitioner ignored that direction of the second respondent, but made another representation to the Director General, Posts and Telegraphs, New Delhi on 16th January, 1982, and requested him to intervene in the matter. The petitioner suggests that as a retaliatory measure, the second respondent issued on 22nd December, 1981, a notification inviting applications for regular appointment to the post of Extra-Departmental Branch Postmaster of Duggunta Branch Office. This notification obviously had been made on the assumption that the petitioner was not holding the post of Extra-Departmental Branch Postmaster on a regular basis. On 24th December, 1981, the second respondent had issued a provisional order of appointment appointing the petitioner as Extra-Departmental Branch Postmaster, Duggunta with effect from 24th January, 1978. It is against the notification dated 22nd December, 1981, that the present writ petition has been filed.
(2.) In the writ petition, the main contention of the petitioner is that she is a regular employee and she is entitled to the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution and also to the Service Rules made by the Posts and Telegraphs Department for the Extra-Departmental Staff. It is argued that she having put in more than three years of service could not have been discharged except for administrative reasons.
(3.) I do not think that these arguments can be accepted. As a fact, the petitioner was not appointed on a regular basis. In fact, it was for the reason that she did not have the order of appointment that she approached the second respondent on 10th December, 1981, and requested him to issue an order of appointment. She was appointed to the post at a time when the existing incumbent was undergoing suspension. Under the Extra-Departmental Staff Service Rules which were cited at the bar, where an Extra-Departmental Agent is put off duty pending departmental or judicial proceedings against him and it is not possible to ascertain the period by which the departmental or judicial proceedings are likely to be finalised, a provisional appointment may be made. It is on that basis the petitioner had appointed as Extra-Departmental Agent at a time when the regular holder of that post was not removed but was only suspended. It should therefore be presumed that her appointment had been made on a provisional basis. By the date of her appointment, there was no regular vacancy. As already noted above, there was no order of appointment at all. For these reasons, the argument of the petitioner that she was regularly appointed in the year 1978 and that she was continuing as a regular employee cannot be accepted. It is accordingly rejected.;