om:38-cl-2017-march — The Applicant who joined as GDS Packer in Baliapal S.O. with effect from 26-3-2001 was asked to look after the duties of GDS BPM, Panchurukhi B.O. when the incumbent of that post was transferred. The High Court taking note of D.G. P&T Circular, dated 12-9-1988 held that the word "same office" for recruitment means "in any office in the same recruitment unit". As the post of GDS BPM fell in the same recruitment unit, the post may be filled by a suitable person, herein the App

GDS Rules

The Applicant who joined as GDS Packer in Baliapal S.O. with effect from 26-3-2001 was asked to look after the duties of GDS BPM, Panchurukhi B.O. when the incumbent of that post was transferred. The High Court taking note of D.G. P&T Circular, dated 12-9-1988 held that the word "same office" for recruitment means "in any office in the same recruitment unit". As the post of GDS BPM fell in the same recruitment unit, the post may be filled by a suitable person, herein the Applicant, looking after the duties of GDS BPM without going through the Employment Exchange subject to the suitability of the person in that unit to be posted as GDS BPM — This chunk is a part of a court case (O.A. No. 354 of 2012) about an applicant who was asked to temporarily fill in for a GDS BPM post at Panchurukhi B.O., despite being initially hired as a GDS Pack... — Facts: The Applicant having been selected through proper route joined as GDS Packer in Baliapal S.O. with effect from 26-3-2001. One Shri B.D. Parmanik working as GDS BPM, Panchurukhi B.O. in account with Baliapal S.O. was promoted to a higher post and was relieved on 16-10-2004. Hence the Inspector of Posts, Jaleswar West Sub-Division, Balasore (R. No. 4 ), vide his Order, dated 15-10-2004 directed the Applicant to remain in charge of GDS BPM, Panchurukhi B.O. and the Applicant took charge of that Post Office from 16-10-2004. As the Applicant took charge of Panchurukhi B.O., he submitted a representation, dated 28-4-2011 to CPMG, Orissa Circle, for his permanent absorption in that post. Based on his representation, Superintendent of Post Office (R. No. 3) asked the Applicant to submit his willingness for consideration of his appointment against the said post with usual conditions. However, the Applicant was informed by R. No. 3 by Letter, dated 16-5-2011 that his representation for posting him as noted above is subject to his agreement to the condition intimated to him by Letter, dated 3-5-2011. The Applicant submitted his willingness to R. No. 3 accepting the conditions stipulated. But R. No. 3 issued a Notification, dated 17-4-2012 inviting the application from the open market for filling up the vacancy of GDS BPM, Panchurukhi, B.O. against which the Applicant has been contusing as in-charge. Aggrieved by the above development, the Applicant has filed this OA seeking a direction to permanently absorb / allow him to continue as GDS BPM, Panchurukhi B.O. in account with Baliapal S.O. Respondents filed the reply justifying their stand and the Applicant filed the rejoinder. In this connection, the Applicant has produced the letter of D.G. Posts, dated 12-9-1988 in which the Clause
(i) under the caption of "Method of Recruitment" is noted which reads - when an ED post falls vacant in the same office or in any office in the same place and if one of the existing EDAs prefers to work against that post, he may be allowed to be appointed against that vacant post without coming through Employment Exchange, provided he is suitable for the other post and fulfils all the required conditions". "It is a fact that Panchurukhi B.O. where Applicant is working as in charge BPM is in account with Baliapal S.O. where the Applicant had initially been working. It is an admitted fact that Panchurukhi B.O. is accountable to Baliapal S.O. It is to be noted that there might be offices where a large number of ED officials are working and to this extent, application of the introductory condition that "when an ED post falls vacant in the same office", is quite obvious to be satisfied. But as regards the other part of provisions "when an ED post falls vacant in any office in the same place", hardly, there are instances where BOs operate side by side in the same place. Therefore, the language used "in any office of the same place" has to be meant and interpreted with reference to S.O. accountable to the Branch Offices, and in the instant case, Baliapal S.O., even though the distance between Baliapal S.O. and Panchurukhi B.O. is stated to be about 4 kms". The order of the High Court in the appeal in O.A. No. 202/1999 is to be noted in this connection. Taking note of the provision of D.G. P&T Circular, dated 12-9-1988 and the clarificatory note issued by D.G. P&T in the Letter, dated 11-8-1994, the expression ‘place' occurring in Circular of 1988 has been explained as below: "After taking into consideration the basic features of the E.D. system and other relevant considerations, it has been decided that the existing word "place" occurring between the words ".... in any office in the same" and "if one of the existing Extra Departmental Agents" shall be substituted by words "recruiting unit". In other words, in place of "or in any office in the same place", the words "in any office in the same recruitment unit" will be substituted".

GDS Rules

The Applicant who joined as GDS Packer in Baliapal S.O. with effect from 26-3-2001 was asked to look after the duties of GDS BPM, Panchurukhi B.O. when the incumbent of that post was transferred. The High Court taking note of D.G. P&T Circular, dated 12-9-1988 held that the word "same office" for recruitment means "in any office in the same recruitment unit". As the post of GDS BPM fell in the same recruitment unit, the post may be filled by a suitable person, herein the Applicant, looking after the duties of GDS BPM without going through the Employment Exchange subject to the suitability of the person in that unit to be posted as GDS BPM — This chunk is a part of a court case (O.A. No. 354 of 2012) about an applicant who was asked to temporarily fill in for a GDS BPM post at Panchurukhi B.O., despite being initially hired as a GDS Pack... — Facts: The Applicant having been selected through proper route joined as GDS Packer in Baliapal S.O. with effect from 26-3-2001. One Shri B.D. Parmanik working as GDS BPM, Panchurukhi B.O. in account with Baliapal S.O. was promoted to a higher post and was relieved on 16-10-2004. Hence the Inspector of Posts, Jaleswar West Sub-Division, Balasore (R. No. 4 ), vide his Order, dated 15-10-2004 directed the Applicant to remain in charge of GDS BPM, Panchurukhi B.O. and the Applicant took charge of that Post Office from 16-10-2004. As the Applicant took charge of Panchurukhi B.O., he submitted a representation, dated 28-4-2011 to CPMG, Orissa Circle, for his permanent absorption in that post. Based on his representation, Superintendent of Post Office (R. No. 3) asked the Applicant to submit his willingness for consideration of his appointment against the said post with usual conditions. However, the Applicant was informed by R. No. 3 by Letter, dated 16-5-2011 that his representation for posting him as noted above is subject to his agreement to the condition intimated to him by Letter, dated 3-5-2011. The Applicant submitted his willingness to R. No. 3 accepting the conditions stipulated. But R. No. 3 issued a Notification, dated 17-4-2012 inviting the application from the open market for filling up the vacancy of GDS BPM, Panchurukhi, B.O. against which the Applicant has been contusing as in-charge. Aggrieved by the above development, the Applicant has filed this OA seeking a direction to permanently absorb / allow him to continue as GDS BPM, Panchurukhi B.O. in account with Baliapal S.O. Respondents filed the reply justifying their stand and the Applicant filed the rejoinder. In this connection, the Applicant has produced the letter of D.G. Posts, dated 12-9-1988 in which the Clause
(i) under the caption of "Method of Recruitment" is noted which reads - when an ED post falls vacant in the same office or in any office in the same place and if one of the existing EDAs prefers to work against that post, he may be allowed to be appointed against that vacant post without coming through Employment Exchange, provided he is suitable for the other post and fulfils all the required conditions". "It is a fact that Panchurukhi B.O. where Applicant is working as in charge BPM is in account with Baliapal S.O. where the Applicant had initially been working. It is an admitted fact that Panchurukhi B.O. is accountable to Baliapal S.O. It is to be noted that there might be offices where a large number of ED officials are working and to this extent, application of the introductory condition that "when an ED post falls vacant in the same office", is quite obvious to be satisfied. But as regards the other part of provisions "when an ED post falls vacant in any office in the same place", hardly, there are instances where BOs operate side by side in the same place. Therefore, the language used "in any office of the same place" has to be meant and interpreted with reference to S.O. accountable to the Branch Offices, and in the instant case, Baliapal S.O., even though the distance between Baliapal S.O. and Panchurukhi B.O. is stated to be about 4 kms". The order of the High Court in the appeal in O.A. No. 202/1999 is to be noted in this connection. Taking note of the provision of D.G. P&T Circular, dated 12-9-1988 and the clarificatory note issued by D.G. P&T in the Letter, dated 11-8-1994, the expression ‘place' occurring in Circular of 1988 has been explained as below: "After taking into consideration the basic features of the E.D. system and other relevant considerations, it has been decided that the existing word "place" occurring between the words ".... in any office in the same" and "if one of the existing Extra Departmental Agents" shall be substituted by words "recruiting unit". In other words, in place of "or in any office in the same place", the words "in any office in the same recruitment unit" will be substituted".

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text