om:73-cl-2019-Jul — This case containing 8 OAs are disposed of by considering the submissions in O.A. No. 1316 of 2016. In this case, Applicants who belong to SC categories have already rendered 20 years of service and some of them have even earned promotion as Postman on provisional basis. Hence relieving the Applicants from service is not correct. Hence authorities are directed to continue them on the basis of their selection made in 1998 as allowed to one Jayanta Kumar Pal, Applicant in O.A. No. 1091 of 1999

This case containing 8 OAs are disposed of by considering the submissions in O.A. No. 1316 of 2016. In this case, Applicants who belong to SC categories have already rendered 20 years of service and some of them have even earned promotion as Postman on provisional basis. Hence relieving the Applicants from service is not correct. Hence authorities are directed to continue them on the basis of their selection made in 1998 as allowed to one Jayanta Kumar Pal, Applicant in O.A. No. 1091 of 1999 — This chunk is from a legal judgment where the Tribunal quashed an order discharging some applicants, who belong to SC categories and have already rendered 20 years of service, from their positions as... — Facts : The facts of the case in O.A. No. 1316 of 2016 is discussed and disposed of by this judgment as all other cases are similar.

The Applicant was appointed as Extra Departmental Agent (EDA) after due selection and the Applicant in this OA joined service in the year 1998. Suddenly, the Respondents R-4 decided to cancel her appointments along with other EDAs after 20 years. Some of them had also been promoted provisionally to posts of Postman, etc. The reason stated for discharging the appointment is alleged irregularity in their posting. Hence this OA is filed by the Applicant in O.A. No. 1316 of 2000 / 2016 to reinstate her in the service as her discharge is not sustainable.

Tribunal restrained the order of discharging the Applicant from her service as EDA on the basis of show-cause notice, dated 27-8-1999. This OA was finally disposed of by setting aside the show-cause notice, dated 27-8-1999. Applicant, if aggrieved by the decision of the authorities, he/she is permitted to approach the Tribunal again.

Some of the Applicants in these OAs even approached the High Court which modified the order of the Tribunal to the extent that if vigilance report had been filed pointing illegality in selection process, opportunity should be given to such EDAs before taking further action.

Long reply has been given by Respondents justifying their stand.

Tribunal heard both parties and perused the materials on record and written notes.

Tribunal noticed that in the impugned order, that there is shortfall in representation of SC and OBC in the first Sub-Division of 10 each, whereas vacancies were notified for 2 OC, 4 SC and these categories of Applicants were selected. By analysis of other cases, finally after analyzing the cases of appointments the Tribunal held "Respondents could have segregated the 3 OC appointees and allowed the Applicant herein to reap the fruits of their appointments, in view of the fact that neither they had any role to play in the erroneous notification nor in regard to wrong distribution of reserved vacancies against each category. In view of such, it cannot be said that they have illegally enjoyed the years of their service, as the Respondents have alleged."