Madras High Court
Union Of India vs The Registrar on 2 April, 2012
Bench: Elipe Dharma Rao, M. Venugopal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Date:- 02.04.2012 Coram The Honourable Mr. Justice ELIPE DHARMA RAO and The Honourable Mr. Justice M. VENUGOPAL Writ Petition Nos.21863 & 22114 of 2011 W.P.No.21863 of 2011 1. Union of India, rep. by Director General, Department of Posts, Dak Bhavan, New Delhi 110 001. 2. The Chief Postmaster General, Tamil Nadu Circle, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002. 3. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Chennai City North Division, Chennai 600 008. 4. The Senior Superintendent of Post Officer, Pondicherry Divisions, Pondicherry-1 ..Petitioners ..Vs.. 1. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai. 2. S. Muthumeenakshi 3. R.P. Balaji 4. M. Muthukrishnan 5. M. Chezhian 6. S. Saraswathi 7. K. Murugan ..Respondents W.P.No.22114 of 2011 1. Union of India, rep. by Director General, Department of Posts, Dak Bhavan, New Delhi 110 001. 2. The Chief Postmaster General, Tamil Nadu Circle, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002. 3. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Chennai City North Division, Chennai 600 008. ..Petitioners ..Vs.. 1. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai. 2. J. Anbumani 3. C. Venkat Raman 4. K.J. Seshadri ..Respondents Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the order dated 29.04.2011 in O.A.Nos.412 & 463 of 2010, on the file of the 1st Respondent, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai and quash the same. For Petitioners : M/s.R. Meenakshi in both WPs For Respondents 2to7 in WP.No.21863/2011 & : Mr.S. Ramaswamy Raja Rajan R2 to R4 in WP.22114/11 - - - COMMON ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J.) Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions are inter-connected, both the writ petitions are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.
2. Aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 29.4.2011 in O.A.Nos.412 and 463 of 2010, wherein and whereunder the Original Applications filed by the contesting Respondents for promotion as Postal Service Group 'B' Officers and absorption were allowed, the Union of India has come forward with these writ petitions.
3. The facts leading to filing of the Original Applications and the Writ Petitions, in brief, are as follows :-
According to the contesting Respondents, they had been promoted to Lower Selection Grade in 2004 and they were posted to work as Assistant Postmaster / Sub Postmaster / Public Relation Inspector as on 01.01.2010 and as on 01.07.2010. While so, the second petitioner had circulated a letter dated 10.02.2010, on the authority of the first petitioner and through the third and fourth respondents, calling for applications for appearing in the Departmental Competitive Examination for promotion to the cadre of Postal Services Group 'B' 2009 to be held on 3rd and 4th May, 2010. In para 3(b) of the said Circular, for General line line officials working in Post Offices / Railway Mail Services / Divisional Offices, the eligibility was fixed as "five years of regular service in the Lower Selection Grade and above as on 01.01.2008". Aggrieved by the cut-off date fixed in the Circular as 01.01.2008 instead of 01.01.2010 or 01.07.2010, the Respondents have made individual representations to the second petitioner on various dates. Since there was no response from the petitioners, they came forward with the OAs challenging para 3(b) Notification and for a direction to promote and absorb in the vacancies announced already, if they come out successful in the Competitive Examination. During pendency of the Original Applications, the contesting Respondents were allowed to participate in the competitive examination by the Tribunal vide order dated 15.4.2010.
4. The stand of the petitioners before the Tribunal was that the respondents have not completed five years of regular service as on 01.01.2008 and, therefore, they were not permitted to appear in the examination. It is their further stand that the crucial date of 01.01.2008 has been fixed by the guidelines contained in the letter dated 26.10.1999.
5. On hearing both sides and perusing the documents available on record, the Tribunal allowed the Original Applications by observing that the letter dated 26.10.1999 relied on by the petitioners for fixing the crucial date is only an executive instructions and cannot have the over-riding effect over the recruitment rules and could not have the crucial date of eligibility of five years in the feeder category, two years behind the date of examination.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the contesting respondents, who are serving in the cadre of Lower Selection Grade (LSG), have not completed five years of regular service in the feeder category as on 01.01.2008 and as such they are not eligible to participate in the competitive examination. She would further contend that the Tribunal has relied upon Rule 156-A relating to Gazetted Officers PO RM.S., to come to a conclusion that the crucial date has to be fixed as 1st July of the year in which the nominations are called for, whereas the said Rule 156-A stipulates selection procedure by promotion through DPC and not through Examination. She would further contend that the aforesaid Rule was deleted and new rules called the 'Department of Posts, Postal Service Group 'B' Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 1993' came into existence.
7. Learned counsel for the Respondents supported the order passed by the Tribunal. He would mainly contend that fixation of the crucial date as 01.01.2008 in the year 2010 is baseless and against the rules and, therefore, it has been rightly interfered by the Tribunal.
8. It is seen that the Postal Directorate issued notification vide letter dated 4.2.2010 for conducting Limited Departmental Competitive Examination for promotion to the cadre of Postal Service Group 'B' for the vacancy year 2008-09 fixing the crucial date for eligibility condition as on 01.01.2008. As per 3(b) of the said Notification, the eligibility criteria for clerical line officials working in Post Offices / RMS Offices / Divisional Offices was fixed as 5 years regular service in LSG and above as on 01.01.2008. In this context, it is the contention of the respondents that for the examination to be conducted in 2010, the crucial date ought not to have been fixed behind two years i.e., 01.01.2008 and such fixation behind two years is without any basis. On the other hand, the petitioners by an additional affidavit have made it clear that since the vacancies to be filled up are of the year 2008-09, the cut-off date was fixed as 01.01.2008 and the cut-off date for eligibility service has been clarified by the Ministry of Communications vide letter dated 26.10.1999 and, such letter remains unchallenged, the respondents are not entitled for the relief prayed for.
9. We have carefully gone through the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has allowed the OA on two grounds, firstly by relying on Rule 156-A, which stipulates the eligibility for the post of Superintendents of Post Offices, came to a conclusion that the five years of continuous service in one or more of the cadres should be as on 1st July of the year in which nominations are called for. Secondly, the letter dated 26.10.1999 is only an executive instruction and it cannot have the over-riding effect over the recruitment rules. The first conclusion of the Tribunal is liable to be interfered with on the ground that Rule 156A of the Recruitment Rules was deleted by the new Amended Rules of the year 1993 and the learned counsel for the Respondents has also not disputed the aforesaid aspect. In such view of the matter, the first conclusion has to go.
10. Coming to the second limb, a perusal of the letter dated 26.10.1999 would amply make it clear that it is a clarification issued regarding the eligibility condition in term of qualifying service as laid down in the Recruitment Rules. As per the amended rules, the clerical line officials working in the Post Offices / Divisional Offices with 5 years regular service in the lower selection Grade and above are eligible for promotion, whereas the crucial date fixed in the extant Rules of the year 1987 i.e., 1st July of the year, was deleted. In the absence of the crucial date, the letter dated 16.10.1999 was issued to clarify the crucial date. In the absence of challenge to such clarification made by the petitioners, the respondents cannot contend that the date fixed as per the executive instructions cannot over-ride the recruitment rules. In the absence of crucial date regarding eligibility condition in term of qualifying service, the clarification letter dated 26.10.1999 came to be issued and the action of the petitioners cannot be said to be illegal or against the recruitment rules. Since the Tribunal has failed to consider the veracity of the letter dated 26.10.1999, in the absence of its challenge, and has proceeded on the extant Rules, we are constrained to interfere with such order.
In view of the above, the writ petitions are allowed and the common order of the Tribunal dated 29.04.2011 in O.A.Nos.412 & 463 of 2010 is set aside. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
dpk To The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai