JUDGMENT : By the Court : Per Borana, J. 1. The present matters have a long and checkered history. For the purposes of adjudication of the present dispute, a brief detail of the history is essential. 2. Vide order dated 13.06.2002, the process for filling up the post of Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Post Master (GDSBPM), Chandrakh was initiated by the respondent Department. The applicant being eligible applied in pursuance to the said notice and was selected. Vide order dated 18.02.2003, he was offered appointment on provisional basis. It is relevant to mention here that the appointment of the petitioner was in lieu of one Panna Lal, who was regularly appointed on the post. Some disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the said Panna Lal and his services were put-off. Therefore, the appointment of the petitioner was with the condition that he would continue on the post till the disciplinary proceedings are finally disposed of against Panna Lal and he has exhausted all channels of departmental and judicial appeals and petition etc. 3. While the petitioner was continuing in service on provisional basis, the notification dated 24.06.2004 was issued vide which the applications were again invited for the post which the petitioner was holding. The petitioner preferred the OA No.172/2004 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) for challenging the said notification. The OA of the petitioner was allowed vide order dated 08.05.2007 wherein it was held as under : - “It is the instructions/rules framed by the respondents themselves that provisional appointment is tenable till the disciplinary proceedings against regular incumbent are finalized etc. In this case it is admitted that till date the proceedings against regular incumbent have not been finalized. Thus, we see no reason as to why the respondents are bent upon in making again a provisional appointment with a view to replace the applicant who is already working on provisional basis. To us, it appears that that there is an effort on the part of the respondents to dis-entitle the applicant benefits to which he would be entitled if he completes three years of service. This cannot be allowed by a court of law, that too without any rhyme or reason. In the reply there are vague assertions on the part of the respondents that the appointment of applicant is irregular. This cannot be allowed by a court of law, that too without any rhyme or reason. In the reply there are vague assertions on the part of the respondents that the appointment of applicant is irregular. Not a single specific irregularity has been pointed out by the respondents. Nobody has stopped them from making regular selection to the post. If an eventuality arises that regular holder of the post is to be reinstated, he can be reinstated at some other place. It is provided in the instructions itself. They cannot be allowed to thwart the benefits which may accrue to the applicant one he completes three years of service. The attempt made by the respondents to justify their action on the ground that shortfall of SC/ST is to be full filled does not appeal to reasons. If they proceed to make regular selection, one can understand their logic. But while making an officiating arrangement, such pleas prima facie appear to be tainted with unfairness. Replacement of an officiating hand with another officiating hand is also against the law laid down by various courts, including Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.” 4. Meaning thereby, the Department was not restrained from making regular selection to the post but it was specifically held that replacement of a provisional employee by another provisional employee was not permissible. With the said finding, the notification dated 24.06.2004 was quashed and set aside. The said order was not challenged by the respondent Department and the petitioner continued to be in service. 5. In the year 2010, vide notification dated 16.03.2010 applications were again invited by the respondent Department to fill up the post of GDSBPM to be posted at Chandrakh branch post office (Osian) that is the place where the petitioner was working. 6. Aggrieved against the said notice, the petitioner again preferred an OA No.95/2010 before the Tribunal on the ground that in terms of the guidelines circulated vide communication dated 21.10.2002 of the respondent Department, he was entitled for regularization of services and fresh recruitment process for the filling up of the post could not have been initiated by the Department. The said OA of the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 02.04.2014 against which writ petition being D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2703/2014 has been preferred. 7. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that : 1. The said OA of the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 02.04.2014 against which writ petition being D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2703/2014 has been preferred. 7. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that : 1. The rejection of the application of the petitioner by the Tribunal solely on the ground that the applicant is not a regularly selected provisional appointee is wholly illegal. It has been submitted that the finding was totally contrary to the finding of the Tribunal in the order dated 08.05.2007 passed in the earlier OA filed by the petitioner wherein it was specifically held as under: “In the reply there are vague assertions on the part of the respondents that the appointment of applicant is irregular. Not a single specific irregularity has been pointed out by the respondents.” 2. The Tribunal failed to consider the relevant guidelines dated 21.10.2002 of the Department which provided as under: “Where regular incumbent is not reinstated, immediate action must be taken to regularize the regularly selected provisional appointee against the said post without resorting to fresh recruitment.” 3. The disciplinary proceedings against the employee Panna Lal had been concluded in the year 2008 and it had been held that he was not entitled to be reinstated. Therefore too, the services of the petitioner deserved to be regularized in terms of the instructions contained in Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 2001’) dated 18.05.1979 and circular dated 30.12.1999 wherein it has been provided that the incumbents appointed on provisional basis if, have completed 3 years of service and have been conferred with certain benefits, efforts should be made to give alternative appointment to them. 4. The petitioner has since completed almost 11 years of service and was entitled for regularization even in terms of the settled proposition of law as the services of the petitioner had never been retrenched by the Department and he continued in service till date without a break. 5. 4. The petitioner has since completed almost 11 years of service and was entitled for regularization even in terms of the settled proposition of law as the services of the petitioner had never been retrenched by the Department and he continued in service till date without a break. 5. The applications filed by the similarly situated persons for regularization had been allowed by the same Tribunal vide order dated 28.03.2014 whereas that of the petitioner had been rejected on the sole ground of him being not a regular employee whereas it was the specific finding of the Tribunal in the earlier round of litigation that the Department failed to prove any irregularity in selection of the petitioner. 6. The respondent Department preferred the writ petitions against the order dated 28.03.2014 passed in the case of the other similarly situated employees and the same were rejected vide order dated 14.01.2015. In pursuance to the rejection of the writ petitions of the Department, the order of the Tribunal has been acted upon and the services of those employees have been regularized by the Department. The petitioner being a similarly situated employee, by all means, deserves to be regularized. 8. Per contra, it has been submitted on behalf of the respondent that : 1. The petitioner was appointed on purely provisional basis as one regular employee Panna Lal was put-off duty and for the smooth functioning of the post, the petitioner was appointed on purely provisional basis with a declaration/undertaking from the petitioner qua the same. Therefore, his services does not deserve to be regularized. 2. Vide order dated 08.05.2007, although it was directed by the Tribunal not to regularize the petitioner on temporary or provisional employee but at the same time the Department was left at liberty to take up the process for regular appointment of the employees. Therefore, the present notification for appointment of regular employees is totally in terms of the order dated 08.05.2007 of the Tribunal. 3. The petitioner did not participate in the regular selection process initiated vide notification dated 16.03.2010 and therefore also he is not entitled for regularization. 4. Even in terms of the ratio as laid down in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi [ (2006) 4 SCC 1 ], the appointment of the applicant being not through a regular selection process, his services cannot be regularized. 9. 4. Even in terms of the ratio as laid down in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi [ (2006) 4 SCC 1 ], the appointment of the applicant being not through a regular selection process, his services cannot be regularized. 9. It is relevant to note that no interim order was passed in the writ petition but the petitioner continued in service and is continuing till date. 10. It has been submitted on record that the selection process of 2010 was never completed for some or the other reason and meanwhile a fresh notification dated 22.06.2020 was issued by the Department for the post of GDSBPM, Chandrakh. 11. Aggrieved against the said notification, the petitioner again preferred an OA No.128/2020 before the Tribunal. Along with filing of the said OA, the petitioner also preferred a second stay petition in the present writ petition (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2703/2014). The second stay petition of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 19.10.2020 on the ground that the notification has already been challenged by the petitioner in the OA filed before the Tribunal. In the OA filed before the Tribunal, the respondent Department filed its reply and along with the reply, placed on record the result dated 24.12.2020 of the recruitment process undertaken vide the notification dated 22.06.2020. The OA of the petitioner has been rejected by the Tribunal vide order dated 12.04.2021 on the ground that the Department was free to fill up the vacancy through a regular selection process and secondly, that the petitioner did not participate in any of the selection processes undertaken by the Department. So far as the regularization part is concerned, the Tribunal held that the said issue had already been dealt with in the previous OA’s filed by the petitioner and had been rejected therefore, the same cannot be entertained in the present OA. 12. Aggrieved against the order dated 12.04.2021, the second writ petition being D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7404/2021 has been filed. In the said writ petition, it has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that : 1. The petitioner has completed a period of 17 years of service and in view of the settled proposition of law deserves to be regularized. 2. In the said writ petition, it has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that : 1. The petitioner has completed a period of 17 years of service and in view of the settled proposition of law deserves to be regularized. 2. The similarly situated people have been regularized by the Department and the case of the petitioner is totally akin to those employees therefore, even on the ground of parity, the petition of the petitioner deserve to be allowed and hence, his services deserve to be regularized. 3. The notification dated 22.06.2020 also has not been issued for appointment of regular employees and therefore as already held by the Tribunal in the year 2007, the petitioner’s services cannot be replaced by some other temporary employee. 4. On the one hand, the Tribunal has rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the issue of regularization had already been decided by the Tribunal vide order dated 02.04.2014 and therefore, the same is hit by res judicata. On the other hand, the Tribunal has held that the petitioner cannot be treated at par to the other similarly situated employees, his service being provisional and temporary. When once the Tribunal applied the principle of res judicata, it could not have given a finding pertaining to the status of the petitioner qua the other similarly situated employees. 5. The principle of res judicata as applied by the Tribunal in the present case is totally against the basic principles of the said term. It had nowhere been decided by the Tribunal in the earlier OA’s that the petitioner was not entitled to regularization. The only question in the earlier OA’s was whether the petitioner could be replaced by some other temporary employee. Rather in the order dated 08.05.2007, the Tribunal had given a specific finding that the petitioner deserved consideration for the grant of benefits as per entitlement upon completion of three years of service. Therefore, the rejection of the OA by the Tribunal is totally contrary to facts and law and hence deserves to be quashed. 13. Per contra, the respondents have supported the order as passed by the Tribunal and prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition. 14. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 15. Therefore, the rejection of the OA by the Tribunal is totally contrary to facts and law and hence deserves to be quashed. 13. Per contra, the respondents have supported the order as passed by the Tribunal and prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition. 14. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 15. Two questions arise for consideration of this Court in the present matter : “(1) Whether the appointment of the petitioner can be termed to be illegal or irregular?. (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for regularization of his services in terms of Uma Devi’s case (supra) and in terms of the orders passed in the case of similarly situated persons i.e. in UOI & Ors. Vs. Nathu Lal Charpota (D.B.C.W.P. No.9739/2014, decided on 14.01.2015) and other connected matters.” Question No.1 16. To decide the said question, the reply which has been filed by the respondents becomes relevant. In para No.2 of the reply, it has been submitted by the respondents as under : “The regular GDSBPM, Chandrakh Sh. Panna Lal was placed under put-off duty with effect from 14.05.2002 and after that the work of Branch Post Office Chandrakh could not be managed by the GDSMC, Chandrakh as he was having educational qualification of 5th class passed. Keeping in view the circumstances the Inspector of Post Office North Sub Division Jodhpur was permitted to engage an eligible candidate as GDSBPM, Chandrakh purely on temporary & provisional basis. The applicant Sh. Sohan Singh was engaged purely on temporary & provisional basis on the post of GDSBPM, Chandrakh w.e.f. 14.02.2003 A/N vide this office Memo No.H5/Chandrakh/Osian/01-02 dated 18.02.2003.” 17. Upon a bare perusal of the averments as made above, it is clear that though the petitioner was appointed on a temporary and provisional basis, his appointment was through a regular selection process. The appointment made in pursuance to the said process cannot be held to be illegal or irregular. It is not disputed that the appointment of the petitioner was conditional till the completion of the disciplinary proceedings against Panna Lal and till it was finally decided whether to reinstate Panna Lal or not. The most important aspect here is that Panna Lal was never reinstated back in services by the Department. It is not disputed that the appointment of the petitioner was conditional till the completion of the disciplinary proceedings against Panna Lal and till it was finally decided whether to reinstate Panna Lal or not. The most important aspect here is that Panna Lal was never reinstated back in services by the Department. Secondly, there was a specific finding by the Tribunal in order dated 08.05.2007 that the assertion that the appointment of the petitioner was irregular is totally vague and not a single specific irregularity could have been pointed out by the respondents. The said finding was never challenged by the Department and the same became final for all purposes. Therefore, in view of the above observations, it can safely be concluded that the appointment of the petitioner was not an illegal or irregular one. Question No.2 18. The reply to question No.2 would also be in affirmative because of the following reasons : 1. In the year 2007 while deciding the OA, the Tribunal had given liberty to the Department to initiate the process for regular selection after decision of the Department in the case of Panna Lal. Admittedly, it was decided by the Department in the year 2008 that Panna Lal was not to be reinstated. After the decision, no proceedings for fresh recruitment were initiated by the Department till 06.03.2010, the date on which the fresh applications were invited. 2. The OA filed by the petitioner against the invitation of the fresh applications vide order dated 06.03.2010 was dismissed by the Tribunal on 02.04.2014 and in the writ petition filed against the same by the petitioner, no interim order was passed in his favour. Meaning thereby right from the year 2008 to the year 2014 there was no impediment against the respondent Department to proceed with the fresh recruitment but the same was not completed. Ultimately the fresh notification was issued on 22.06.2020, by which time the petitioner had completed almost 17 years of service. 3. As soon as the decision in the case of Panna Lal was taken by the Department in the year 2008, the guidelines dated 21.10.2002 of the Department came into picture which provided that where a regular incumbent is not reinstated, immediate action must be taken to regularize the regularly selected provisional appointee against the said post without resorting to fresh recruitment. Therefore, in terms of the said circular too, the petitioner was entitled to be regularized. 4. The case of the petitioner cannot be differentiated from that of the other similarly situated employees namely Nathu Lal Charpota and Ors. All the arguments raised by the Department in the present petition had been raised in the writ petition (D.B.C.W.P. No.9739/2014) of those employees too and after consideration of the same the Division Bench decided in favour of the petitioners therein. As the Department had acted upon the same and regularized the services of the petitioners therein, the present petitioner is also entitled to be regularized being a similarly situated employee. 5. Even if it is assumed that the petitioner is not similarly situated to the petitioners in the case of Nathu Lal Charpota and Ors, the petitioner is entitled for regularization even in his individual capacity. Admittedly, the petitioner has completed more than 17 years of service and therefore, in terms of Uma Devi’s case (supra) also he is entitled for regularization of his services. 19. In view of the above observations and in view of the ratio as laid down in Uma Devi’s case (supra), the present writ petitions are allowed. The impugned order dated 12.04.2021 (Annexure P/1) in Writ Petition No.7404/2021 and impugned order dated 02.04.2014 (Annexure-1) in Writ Petition No.2703/2014 are quashed and hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioner with effect from the date of completion of 10 years of services from his initial date of appointment. All the consequential benefits would follow.