1. This O.A. No. 240/2020 has been filed by Sri P. Maishan, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant. The case was finally heard on 12.03.2021 and reserved for orders. However, due to the second wave of covid-19 Pandemic, the case could not be adjudicated and pronounced. The matter was listed once again on 12.08.2021 and reserved for orders with the liberty to both parties to file their written arguments within a period of 7 days. The parties have not filed any written argument till date.

2. In this OA, the applicant I claiming that he was initially appointed as GDSMD (II)(Outsider) vide order dated 19.12.2014 (Annexure-A2) and afterwards, he was issued further appointment letters which are stated below:

i) There was another appointment letter dated 10.03.2015 in the same capacity.

ii) Appointment letter dated 02.04.2016

iii) Appointment letter dated 02.07.2016

iv) Appointment letter dated 28.12.2016

v) Appointment letter dated 27.12.2017 wherein he has been indicated as GDS MC Jatanbari SO.

vi) In subsequent appointment letter dated 02.07.2018, his post has been indicated as GDS MC.

vii) Appointment letter dated 28.09.2018 was issued indicating him as GSMC from Amarpur to Jatanbari.

viii) Appointment letter dated 26.12.2018 was issued to the applicant indicating him as outsider s GDSMC (Outsiders) Amarpur to Jatanbari.

ix) Last appointment letter produced by applicant is of 30th March, 2019 for a period from 29.03.2019 to 30.06.2019 at the rate of Rs.150 per day as GDSMC. Then the applicant produced his copy of representation dated “NIL” wherein he has highlighted that in spite of his repeated prayers to the SDI, he has not been appointed/engaged.

3. The relief sought for by the applicant in this OA is as under:-

I. Quashing/setting aside only that impugned part of the order vide Memo No.A2/T. Colony SO dated 02.07.2016 as well as any such impugned part in any other subsequent order (Annexure-B) issued by the Respondent No.3 whereby it has been stated that the petitioner shall have no claims for appointment to any post and the Appointing Authority reserved the right to terminate the provisional appointment of the petitioner to the post of GDS MD II, T. Colony O (Matarbari Area) at any time before the mentioned period without notice and without assigning any reason, declaring the same to be ultra vires of the Constitution of India and the Gramin Dak Sebak (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011.

II. Quashing/setting aside only that impugned part of the order vide No. A1/Mail arrangement/2017-18 dated 27.12.2017 as well as any such impugned part in any other similar order (Annexure-C) issued by the Respondent No.3 whereby the petitioner had been demoted from the post of GDS MD to GDS MC.

III. Quashing/setting aside only that impugned order vide No.A/GDS/Arrangements/R.K.Pur dated 16.07.2019 (Annexure-D) as well as any such subsequent orders issued by the Respondent No.3 wherein one Sri Manindra Reang, BPM (Branch Post Master, Paharpur BO) has been entrusted with the charge of GDS MD/MC

IV. Directing the respondents, to regularize the service of the petitioner as GDS MD with retrospective effect from 01/01/2015 an thereby count the period of service rendered by the writ petitioner with effect from 01/01/2015 as GDS MD as well GDS MC on provisional appointment, till such regularization for all intentional purposes for providing regularization benefit as well as other incidental service benefits fair ends of justice.

4. The basic grievance of the applicant is that he was initially appointed as GDSMD and he used to get salary of approximately Rs.9790. Subsequently, he has been engaged as GDS(MC) which is the downgrading of the status. The second grievance of the applicant is that he is no more engaged by the respondent authorities in spite of his representation. He cited the rules of the respondent authorities i.e. GDS(Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011. On perusal of the papers submitted by the applicant, Sri P. Maishan, learned counsel has failed to point out the relevant para/clause under which the applicant is claiming for regular appointment. In fact, it is observed at para 3(d) of the Department of Posts, Gramin Dak Sevaks(Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2011, Gramin Dak Sevak covers five categories of employees. It does not indicate the differences in the status of these categories if any. At para 3(a), it also provides terms and conditions of engagement wherein sub-para (V) and (VI) it is clearly indicated that a Gramin Dak Sevak shall be outside the Civil Service of the Union and shall not claim to be at par with the Central Government Employees.

5. Ap

art from the rules cited above, it is clear from the copies of the appointment which are submitted by the applicant that he has been engaged by the respondents as an outsider from time to time as a substitute for short periods as could be seen from the copies of the orders ranging from three months to six months. As such, we found that the applicant fails to make out his case for regular appointment as claimed by him. 6. Accordingly, the OA is found to be devoid of the merit and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.