- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52689-DB WP No. 6526 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 6526 OF 2023 (S-CAT) BETWEEN: SRI.H.B. JAGADEESH S/O BYRASHETTY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, GDS MD/MC HEBBLU BO, HALEBEEDU-573 121 R/AT KARIYAMMANA BEEDI, HALEBEEDU 573 121, BELURU TQ HASSAN DIST. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. JAYANNA G R.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA REP. ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, DAK BHAVAN, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI-110001. 2. THE POST MASTER GENERAL SOUTH KARNATAKA REGION, Digitally Signed by REKHA R Location : High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52689-DB WP No. 6526 of 2023 GPO BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN-573 201. 4. THE ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES ARASIKERE SUB DIVISION, ARASIKERE-573 103. HASSAN DIST. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. POOJAPPA J., CGC FOR R1 TO R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF THE CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 03.02.2023 PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BENCH IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 170/00936/2019 IS AT ANNEXURE-A; ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONTINUE THE PETITIONER SERVICE/EMPLOYMENT BY REGULARIZING HIM IN GDS MD/MC . THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52689-DB WP No. 6526 of 2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD) The petitioner, who has worked as a Gramina Dak Sevak/ Mail Deliverer/Mail Carrier [GDS (MD/MC)] in Hassan Division of the Postal Department between 2008 to 2019 at different intervals, has filed his application with the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru [for short, 'the Tribunal'] in Application No.170/00936/2019. The petitioner’s application is for a declaration that he is entitled to be included in the list of discharged/displaced GDS and to be provided with alternative employment because of his services. The petitioner has also sought directions to the respondents to provide him with alternative employment because he has completed three [3] years of continuous service. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52689-DB WP No. 6526 of 2023 2. The Tribunal has rejected the application observing that the petitioner will be at liberty to participate in the recruitment process if he is eligible and that the respondents must consider the same as permissible in law. The Tribunal has concluded that the petitioner was engaged on a stop-gap arrangement by appointment at the local level as an interim arrangement until a provisional or regular appointment is made and that the petitioner cannot claim a right to regular employment because he is not engaged after the due selection process for provisional/regular appointment. The Tribunal has relied upon a decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.24557/2013, which is decided on 18.11.2013. 3. It is undisputed that the petitioner continued as GDS MD/MC between 26.10.2019 and 16.03.2023 because of the Tribunal’s interim orders in his application. This Court, on 24.03.2023, has - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52689-DB WP No. 6526 of 2023 granted some relief to the petitioner observing that if the petitioner is not relieved by the respondents, he shall not be relieved until further orders. On 06.11.2025, it was stated on behalf of the petitioner before this Court that the respondents have constrained him to sign a relieving order prior to this Court's interim order to circumvent the benefit that was granted by this Court on 24.03.2023, and thus he was preempted the benefit of the interim order granted by this Court. 4. This Court, in the light of this canvass, has called upon the Superintendent of Post Offices, Hassan Division [the third respondent] to file an affidavit. In compliance, an affidavit along with enclosures is filed on 24.11.2025. The Superintendent has sworn to the affidavit stating that: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52689-DB WP No. 6526 of 2023 [a] Upon receipt of the Tribunal's order, the Assistant Superintendent of Post Office, Arsikere Sub-Division visited Halebeedu Sub-Post Office on 16.03.2023 to deliver the termination letter along with a copy of the Tribunal's order but the petitioner was not there, and he did not turn up until 12.00 noon, [b] Therefore, the Assistant Superintendent went to Cheelanayakanahalli Branch Post Office and waited for the petitioner till 01.00 p.m. The petitioner did not turn up even there. As such, the Assistant Superintendent made alternative arrangements at this Branch and sent the termination order by registered post under acknowledgment. [c] The petitioner did not receive this intimation of termination letter by post either on 17.03.2023 or on 18.03.2023 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52689-DB WP No. 6526 of 2023 and ultimately the petitioner refused to receive on 20.03.2023 and therefore the registered letter with acknowledgment is returned with a remark that the addressee has rejected. 5. The Assistant Superintendent is categorical that the petitioner's signature is not obtained on the relieving letter. This Court must record that the petitioner has filed no counter affidavit to contest the circumstances brought on record by the Superintendent. The questions considered for disposal of this petition are: [i] Whether this Court can opine that the Tribunal's view that the petitioner has no right to claim regular appointment because he has not undergone the selection process for regular appointment suffers from legal infirmity. [ii] Whether the affidavit filed by the Superintendent must be accepted. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52689-DB WP No. 6526 of 2023 6. Sri G. R. Jayanna, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the respondents cannot dispute that the petitioner has been in continuous employment from the year 2008 until he was constrained to remain outside such engagement and if the petitioner has thus been in continuous employment with some artificial breaks in between, the petitioner must be admitted to regular employment in terms of the prevailing circular. 7. On facts, the learned counsel submits that the respondents have maintained the practice of keeping posts vacant and getting work done from those who are engaged on stop-gap arrangements with certain artificial breaks emphasizing that the post of GDS (MD/MC) in Cheelanayakanahalli continues to be vacant and is manned by two sisters alternatively with one sister working for three months to be replaced by another sister only to come back after the next three months. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52689-DB WP No. 6526 of 2023 8. Sri.G.R.Jayanna relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in Dharam Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr. [in Civil Appeal No.8558/2018] to contend that years of ad hoc engagement cannot be defended by shifting excuses or pleas of financial strain when it cannot be disputed that those who are on ad hoc engagement have contributed to the running of the public institutions. The learned counsel emphasizes that in the circumstances the respondents must provide regular alternative employment as assured and permissible in terms of the Rules. 9. Sri Poojappa J., the learned counsel for the respondents, submits that the petitioner has not been in continuous employment and that he has voluntarily agreed to be engaged on a stop-gap arrangement whenever the need for the department has arisen because either somebody has died in office or has quit service. The learned counsel emphasizes - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52689-DB WP No. 6526 of 2023 that the stop-gap engagement and list for provisional and regular recruitments are governed by the Department of Posts, Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011, and that as observed by the Tribunal the purpose and manner of engaging persons on stop gap arrangement differs from the purpose and the process under which the provisional and regular appointments are made. 10. This Court must at the outset observe that the Co-ordinate Bench in W.P.No.24557/2013, after examining Rules 2011, has observed [a] that though there could be artificial breaks in the stop-gap service that itself would not be sufficient for regularization or regular employment because a candidate even for provisional appointment has to undergo the process of selection stipulated for regular appointment, [b] that only after an elaborate exercise the regular appointments are made, [c] that a list of provisional appointees is prepared for provisional appointments - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52689-DB WP No. 6526 of 2023 after such process, and [d] that because a person engaged on a stop-gap arrangement is taken independent of the maximum age limit and the educational qualifications such person cannot assert a right to regular appointment. The Co-ordinate Bench has underscored that a stop-gap engagement cannot be a step in aid of regular employment when such engagement is not after selection for regular recruitment. 11. The respondents have placed on record not just some of the stop-gap arrangement orders issued to the petitioner, but they have also placed on record the details of the petitioner's stop-gap engagement. These details are: Sl. No. Name of the office With post where Petitioner has worked on stop gap basis Period during which worked on stopgap basis From -To Reason for Vacancy 1 GDSMD/MC Hebbalu BO a/w Halebeedu SO 06.06.2008 to 02.09.2008 Due to resignation of Sri Govindaraju 2 GDSMD, Halebeedu SO 20.11.2008 to 17.02.2009 Sri Manjuanth was Kept under put off Duty - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52689-DB WP No. 6526 of 2023 3 GDSMD/ MC Hebbalu BO a/w Halebeedu SO 05.05.2010 to 01.08.2010 Due to transfer of the incumbent Sri. Venugopal D.S. 4 BPM, Rajanasiriyur BO a/w Halebeedu SO 13.04.2015 to 10.07.2015 Smt. R.N.Vasanthakumari was kept under put off duty 5 BPM, Rajanasiriyur BO a/w Halebeedu SO 13.07.2015 to 09.10.2025 Smt. R.N. VasanthaKumari was kept under put off duty 6 BPM, Rajanasiriyur BO a/w Halebeedu 12.10.2015 to 08.01.2016 Smt. R.N. Vasanthakumari was kept under put off duty 7 BPM, Rajanasiriyur BO a/w Halebeedu SO 11.01.2016 to 09.04.2016 Smt. R.N. Vasanthakumari was kept under put off duty 8 BPM, Rajanasiriyur BO a/w Halebeedu SO 12.04.2016 to 29.06.2016 Smt. R.N. Vasanthakumari was kept under put off duty 9 BPM, Cheelanayakanahalli BO a/w Haledbeedu SO 15.04.2017 to 10.07.2017 due to termination of engagement of Sri. Gowregowda 10 BPM, Cheelanayakanahalli BO a/w Haledbeedu SO 12.07.2017 to 08.10.2017 due to termination of engagement of Sri. Gowregowda 11 GDS MD/MC, Cheelanayakanahalli BO a/w Haledbeedu SO 20.11.2017 to 24.11.2017 Due to death of Sri. C.N. Moganna Gowda 12 BPM, Cheelanayakanahalli BO a/w Haledbeedu SO 09.10.2017 to 04.01.2018 due to termination of engagement of Sri. Gowregowda - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52689-DB WP No. 6526 of 2023 13 BPM, Cheelanayakanahalli BO a/w Haledbeedu SO 06.01.2018 to 03.04.2018 due to termination of engagement of Sri. Gowregowda 14 BPM, Cheelanayakanahalli BO a/w Haledbeedu SO 05.04.2018 to 30.06.2018 due to termination of engagement of Sri. Gowregowda 15 BPM, Cheelanayakanahalli BO a/w Haledbeedu SO 03.07.2018 to 10.08.2018 due to termination of engagement of Sri. Gowregowda 16 GDSMD/MD, Hebbalu BO a/w Halebeedu SO 09.02.2019 to 07.05.2019 due to termination of engagement of Sri. Subramanya 17 GDS MD/MC Cheelanayakanahalli BO a/w Haledbeedu SO 01.05.2019 to 27.07.2019 Due to death of Sri. C.N.Moganna Gowda 18 GDS MD/MC Cheelanayakanahalli BO a/w Haledbeedu SO 30.07.2019 to 25.10.2019 (except 05.08.2019 to 12.08.2019) Due to death of Sri. C.N.Moganna Gowda 19 GDS MD/MC Cheelanayakanahalli BO a/w Haledbeedu SO 26.10.2019 to 16.03.2023 As per Hon'ble CAT Order in OA no.936/2019 12. This Court observes two things even on a cursory reading of these details viz., there is a substantial break in the petitioner's engagement on the stop-gap arrangement between 01.08.2010 and 30.04.2015 and that there are breaks which could be - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52689-DB WP No. 6526 of 2023 called artificial breaks but then those are because some incumbents retired from service or have died in harness. This Court also observes that when a post has fallen vacant because of the death of an incumbent, the vacancy is carried on for 2-3 years with the work being discharged by those such as the petitioner on the stop-gap arrangement. 13. This could be a folly, and it indeed gives rise to complaints that the officers resort to stopgap arrangements despite sanctioned vacancies. However, this Court cannot deduce an interest/a right in the petitioner to seek regular employment because, as underscored by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the petitioner's engagement is under the Rules that provide for the stop-gap arrangement subject to the regular process of recruitment with an intermediate provisional recruitment. The regular and provisional recruitments are based on certain minimum qualifications and a robust selection process. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52689-DB WP No. 6526 of 2023 14. This Court must observe that the authorities must initiate the process for either provisional or regular appointment when a post falls vacant and keep the practice of engaging persons on a stopgap arrangement to the minimum. The purpose of the Rules 2011 and the scheme thereunder call out for an exception to apply the principle enunciated by the Apex Court in Dharam Singh's case [supra]. The first question is answered accordingly. 15. The affidavit filed by the Superintendent of Post Office undermines the petitioner's case that his signatures were taken under duress on the relieving letter intending to preempt him from availing the benefit of this Court's interim order. The details as furnished, including the photocopies of the mahazar drawn by the Assistant Superintendent on 16.03.2023 and the postal acknowledgment, which are at an undisputed time, persuade this Court to accept that the petitioner, who had continued by - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52689-DB WP No. 6526 of 2023 virtue of the interim orders of the Tribunal, was indeed relieved before this Court's Order dated 24.03.2023. The second question is answered accordingly. The petition stands rejected. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M. NADAF) JUDGE SA ct:sr