Madras High Court
N.Selvan vs Union Of India on 6 June, 2022
Author: S.Vaidyanathan
Bench: S.Vaidyanathan
W.P.No.16818, 27455, 27677, 28860, 28985,
29265, 13963, 3501, 4992, 29272, 34266, 34268,
30111, 34301, 1145, 2014, 3195, 3196, 31272,
31643, 31644, 31897, 32130 of 2017, 88 of 2018
and 5294 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ORDERS RESERVED ON : 27.04.2022
ORDERS PRONOUNCED ON : 06.06.2022
CORAM:
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
and
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE N.MALA
W.P.No.16818, 27455, 27677, 28860, 28985, 29265, 13963, 3501, 4992,
29272, 34266, 34268, 30111, 34301, 1145, 2014, 3195, 3196, 31272, 31643,
31644, 31897, 32130 of 2017, 88 of 2018 and 5294 of 2016
W.P.No.16818 of 2017
N.Selvan ... Petitioner
vs.
1.Union of India, Rep. By
Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Tiruchirapalli Division,
Tiruchirapalli – 620 001.
2.The Registrar,
Central Administrative Tribunal,
Madras Bench,
Chennai – 600 001. ... Respondent
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records and quash
1/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16818, 27455, 27677, 28860, 28985,
29265, 13963, 3501, 4992, 29272, 34266, 34268,
30111, 34301, 1145, 2014, 3195, 3196, 31272,
31643, 31644, 31897, 32130 of 2017, 88 of 2018
and 5294 of 2016
the order dated 29.08.2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Madras bench in O.A.No.131 of 2016 and consequently direct the first
respondent to grant him financial up-gradation under MACP III besides re-
fixing the petitioners pension accordingly with all attendant benefits
including interest on arrears at the rate of 12% per annum till the date of
payment.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Arun
(in W.P.Nos.16818, 27455,
27677, 28860, 28985, 29265,
4992, 29272, 34266, 34268,
30111, 34301, 1145, 2014,
3195, 3196, 31272, 31643,
31644, 31897, 32130 of 2017
& W.P.No.88 of 2018)
For Petitioners : Mr.P.Rajendran
(in W.P.Nos.13963 & 3501 of 2017)
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Amardeep
(in W.P.No.5294 of 2016)
For R1 : Mr.V.Balasubramanian
(in W.P.Nos.16818, 27455,
27677, 28860, 28985, 29265,
4992, 29272, 34266, 34268,
30111, 1145, 2014, 3195,
3196, 31272, 31643, 31644,
31897, 32130 of 2017)
For R1 : Mr.B.Suhir Kumar
(in W.P.No.4992 of 2017) SCGSC
2/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16818, 27455, 27677, 28860, 28985,
29265, 13963, 3501, 4992, 29272, 34266, 34268,
30111, 34301, 1145, 2014, 3195, 3196, 31272,
31643, 31644, 31897, 32130 of 2017, 88 of 2018
and 5294 of 2016
For R1 : Mr.M.Aravind Kumar
(in W.P.No.29272 of 2017) SCGSC
For R1 : Mr.Perambur E.Palani
(in W.P.No.5294 of 2016) ACGSC
For R1 : Mr.J.Madanagopal Rao
(in W.P.Nos.88 of 2018 & ACGSC
34301 of 2017)
*****
COMMON ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by S.VAIDYANATHAN,J. and N.MALA, J.] These batch of writ petitions are filed against the orders' dated 29.08.2016, 11.08.2016, 08.01.2016, 05.12.2016, 02.01.2017, 26.10.2016 and 16.10.2016 of the CAT rejecting the petitioners' applications filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1989, wherein a challenge was made to the action of the respondents in refusing to grant financial up- gradation under MACP Scheme.
2.As the outcome of the batch of writ petitions would be a direct sequetur of the controversy whether the post of Postal Assistant is the 3/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16818, 27455, 27677, 28860, 28985, 29265, 13963, 3501, 4992, 29272, 34266, 34268, 30111, 34301, 1145, 2014, 3195, 3196, 31272, 31643, 31644, 31897, 32130 of 2017, 88 of 2018 and 5294 of 2016 Promotional post of Postman or whether the selection to the post of Postal Assistant on the basis of departmental test is direct recruitment, hence all the writ petitions are taken up together and a common order is passed.
3.The service particulars of the individual petitioners is tabulated below for better understanding and appreciation.
SI. W.P.No. OA. No./ Entry Promotion TBOP BCR/M
No. Applicant Post/Date Post on Date ACP
LDCE/Dat Date
e
1 88 of 2018 115/2016 Group 'D'/ Postal 051798 070108
A.K.Sukumaran 10.08.1978 Assistant /
05.05.1982
2 34268 of 129/2016 Postman/ Postal 072896 010107
2017 P.Seethapathy 22.06.1978 Assistant /
21.07.1980
3 27455 of 130/2016 Postman/ Postal 101194 010105
2017 A.Pechimuthu 11.12.1970 Assistant /
02.10.1978
4 16818 of 131/2016 N.Selvan Group D/ Postal 062097 010108
2017 08.07.1977 Assistant /
06.06.1981
5 31272 of 133/2016 Postman/ Postal 030695 070105
2017 K.P.Gangadharan 22.09.1973 Assistant /
27.02.1979
4/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16818, 27455, 27677, 28860, 28985, 29265, 13963, 3501, 4992, 29272, 34266, 34268, 30111, 34301, 1145, 2014, 3195, 3196, 31272, 31643, 31644, 31897, 32130 of 2017, 88 of 2018 and 5294 of 2016 6 34301 of 134/2016 Postman/ Postal 081489 010100 2017 C.R.Rangan 10.01.1970 Assistant / 17.12.1973 7 28860 of 215/2016 Postman/ Postal 110890 010101 2017 G.Chandramohan 08.09.1970 Assistant / 12.11.1974 8 31644 of 1050/2016 Postman/ Postal 061597 010108 2017 K.N.Rangaraju 25.06.1976 Assistant / 08.06.1981 9 32130 of 1052/2016 Postman/ Postal 102594 010105 2017 S.Balakrishnan 16.08.1972 Assistant / 12.10.1978 10 27677 of 1104/2016 Postman/ Postal 052599 090108 2017 G.Annadurai 12.11.1977 Assistant / 15.05.1983 11 31643 of 1105/2016 Postman/ Postal 052599 030908 2017 M.Vaithy 27.01.1979 Assistant / 08.05.1983 12 31897 of 1132/2016 Postman/ Postal 051799 110310 2017 R.Uvarajan 27.01.1979 Assistant / 08.05.1983 13 28985 of 1566 of 2015 Postman/ Postal 040991 070101 2017 P.Balasubramanian 24.09.1970 Assistant / 06.04.1975 14 29265 of 885 of 2015 Postman/ Postal 060599 070109 2017 K.M.Ramachandra 24.04.1978 Assistant / n 05.06.1983 15 13963 of 1089 of 2012 Group D / Postal 060803 083108 2017 G.Saravanan 1979 Assistant / 05.05.1987 16 3501 of Postal 5/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16818, 27455, 27677, 28860, 28985, 29265, 13963, 3501, 4992, 29272, 34266, 34268, 30111, 34301, 1145, 2014, 3195, 3196, 31272, 31643, 31644, 31897, 32130 of 2017, 88 of 2018 and 5294 of 2016 2017 613 of 2012 Postmen Assistants
1.S.Elangovan 18/04/85 03/03/90 04/04/06 01/09/08
2.G.Jyotheeswaran 11/07/83 03/03/90 03/04/06 “
3.A.B.Arun 12/04/83 03/03/90 31/03/06 “ Rasheed 11/07/83 13/10/90 13/11/06 “
4.K.V.Chandraseka ran 21/07/83 25/11/89 25/12/05 “
5.E.Manoharan 26/03/81 03/03/90 25/03/06 “
6.M.N.Jayakumar 01/07/83 03/03/90 29/03/06 “
7.S.Ramani 23/07/83 13/10/90 10/11/06 “
8.P.Palanivel 17 7992 of 738 of 2015 Group D/ Postal 121783 101191 2017 V.R.Venkatesan 19/01/71 Assistant / 19/09/75 18 29272 of 1272 of 2017 Group D/ Postal 073196 010107 2017 G.Srinivasan 05/03/76 Assistant / 21/10/1980 19 34266 of 1264 of 2015 Group D/ Sorting 072096 010107 2017 R.Ramamurthi 15/10/73 Assistant / 10/07/1980 20 30111 of 1026 of 2015 Postman / Postal 121783 101191 2017 M.Ramadoss 28/10/71 Assistant / 21/08/76 21 1145 of 1024 of 2015 Postman / Postal 121783 101191 2017 19/05/69 Assistant / 08/05/73 22 3195 of 1029 of 2015 Postman / Postal 032994 070104 2017 K.Durairaju 30/10/72 Assistant / 28/03/78 23 2014 of 1030 of 2015 Postman / Postal 121783 101191 2017 R.Gunasekaran 14/04/70 Assistant / 20/04/78 6/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16818, 27455, 27677, 28860, 28985, 29265, 13963, 3501, 4992, 29272, 34266, 34268, 30111, 34301, 1145, 2014, 3195, 3196, 31272, 31643, 31644, 31897, 32130 of 2017, 88 of 2018 and 5294 of 2016 24 3196 of 1031 of 2015 Postman / Postal 012492 03/06/03 2017 M.Mayavaru 14/10/70 Assistant / w.e.f.
16/12/75 01/01/02
25 5294 of 520 of 2012 Mailman / Sorting
2016 A.venkataswamy 10/07/80 Assistant /
26/03/91
4.From the said table it is clear that all the petitioners joined the respondent Department on various dates either as Postman or in Group D posts. All the petitioners wrote the departmental tests and were selected to the post of Postal Assistant on the dates given against each of the petitioners. That the respondents introduced certain schemes to provide career advancement to its employees is not disputed. The TBOP Scheme was introduced on 17.12.1983 and one financial up-gradation was given to all employees who completed 16 years of service in a particular cadre and BCR Scheme was introduced on 11.10.1991 and financial up-gradation was extended to all employees who completed 26 years of service in the particular cadre. The MACP Scheme was introduced on 19.05.2009 and under the scheme financial up-gradation to next pay band and grade pay in promotional hierarchy was extended on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of 7/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16818, 27455, 27677, 28860, 28985, 29265, 13963, 3501, 4992, 29272, 34266, 34268, 30111, 34301, 1145, 2014, 3195, 3196, 31272, 31643, 31644, 31897, 32130 of 2017, 88 of 2018 and 5294 of 2016 Departmental Service. The MACP Scheme was introduced with an avowed object to avoid stagnation in a particular post and was limited to three financial up-gradations in the entire service of the employee.
5.All the petitioners participated in the Departmental Test and were selected to the post of Postal Assistant on the dates tabulated above and they were also extended two financial up-gradations one under the TBOP Scheme on completion of 16 years in Postal Assistant cadre and the second financial up-gradation was extended under BCR Scheme on completion of 26 years in the Postal Assistant cadre. On introduction of the MACP Scheme, all the petitioners requested for financial up-gradation under MACP III, along with other benefits, but the same was rejected by the respondents, hence they preferred the O.A.s' before the CAT. The Administrative Tribunal vide orders dated 29.08.2016, 11.08.2016, 08.01.2016, 05.12.2016, 02.01.2017, 26.10.2016 and 16.10.2016 dismissed all the O.A.s' and hence the petitioners have approached this Hon'ble Court by way of the above writ petitions.
8/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16818, 27455, 27677, 28860, 28985, 29265, 13963, 3501, 4992, 29272, 34266, 34268, 30111, 34301, 1145, 2014, 3195, 3196, 31272, 31643, 31644, 31897, 32130 of 2017, 88 of 2018 and 5294 of 2016
6.The above facts are not disputed, the only controversy is on the extension of MACP III to the writ petitioners. The petitioners pray for extension of MACP III to them on the basis that on their appointment as Postal Assistant, they were settled only two financial up-gradation under TBOP Scheme and BCR Scheme, and on completion of 30 years of service, they were further entitled to the third financial up-gradation under MACP Scheme. The petitioners further contention is that their appointment to the post of Postal Assistant after successfully passing the Departmental Test cannot be considered as promotion but should be considered only as Direct Recruitment.
7.On the other hand the contention of the respondent is that the appointment of the petitioners as Postal Assistants consequent to the passing of Departmental Test is to be considered only as promotion and not direct recruitment. If it is considered as a promotion, then the petitioners would not be eligible for MACP III.
9/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16818, 27455, 27677, 28860, 28985, 29265, 13963, 3501, 4992, 29272, 34266, 34268, 30111, 34301, 1145, 2014, 3195, 3196, 31272, 31643, 31644, 31897, 32130 of 2017, 88 of 2018 and 5294 of 2016
8.Similar issue of financial up-gradation under the MACP Scheme was raised before two Division Benches of this Hon'ble Court on earlier occasions. Two different views were rendered in the Judgments in 2019 SCC Online Mad 9326 and CTC 2015 MHC 4401. We have gone through both the Division Bench Judgments and we find that as the Rule position was not placed before the Hon'ble Division Benches different views were taken. In the present cases,the respective learned counsels' placed the Rule position before us and extensively argued on the basis of the Rules. We therefore venture to decide the controversy on the basis of the Rule position.
9.The learned counsels for the petitioners in support of their contention that appointment to the post of Postal Assistant on passing the Departmental Test is only promotion highlighted the following points from the Recruitment Rules of 1971:
1) That though the method of selection is given as both Direct Recruitment and promotion through a test, as no DPS is constituted, it cannot be taken as promotion.
10/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16818, 27455, 27677, 28860, 28985, 29265, 13963, 3501, 4992, 29272, 34266, 34268, 30111, 34301, 1145, 2014, 3195, 3196, 31272, 31643, 31644, 31897, 32130 of 2017, 88 of 2018 and 5294 of 2016
2) That the selection is only through test from nearly 49 categories of officials and no other criteria is laid down for selecting the candidates.
3) The critical character of a promotional process like consideration of seniority of officials in the feeder post is absent.
4) The crucial aspect of separate quota for the purpose of promotion to be earmarked for the respective feeder posts, if there is more than one is also absent.
5) The failure to explain in column 5 of the schedule to the RR of 1971 as to whether it is a selection post or non-selection post would again point to the fact that it is only direct recruitment.
10.The further submissions of the counsels were that on earlier occasions when financial up-gradation under TBOP Scheme and BCR Scheme were granted the date for calculating 16 years and 26 years of 11/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16818, 27455, 27677, 28860, 28985, 29265, 13963, 3501, 4992, 29272, 34266, 34268, 30111, 34301, 1145, 2014, 3195, 3196, 31272, 31643, 31644, 31897, 32130 of 2017, 88 of 2018 and 5294 of 2016 qualifying service respectively was date of entry as Postal Assistant hence it was not fair to take a contrary stand now.
11.The learned counsel further relied on the following Judgments in support of their case.
1.Union of India & Others Versus Shakeel Ahmad Burney reported in CDJ 2014 DHC 3054,
2.Union of India, Rep. By Director General, Department of Posts & Others – Vs – D.Sivakumar & Another reported in CDJ 2015 MHC 4401,
3.Union of India – Vs – Bhanwar Lal Regar & Others, and
4.Union of India – Vs.- Bhanwar Lal Regar & Others (Review Petition No.171 of 2016 & Batch of Petitions)
12.The learned counsel for the respondents relied on the schedule to the Recruitment Rules to drive home the point that the appointment to the Post of Postal Assistant was only promotion and not Direct Recruitment.
12/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16818, 27455, 27677, 28860, 28985, 29265, 13963, 3501, 4992, 29272, 34266, 34268, 30111, 34301, 1145, 2014, 3195, 3196, 31272, 31643, 31644, 31897, 32130 of 2017, 88 of 2018 and 5294 of 2016
13.The learned counsel further submitted that two modes of appointment to Postal Assistant Post were given in the Recruitment Rules. One was by way of Direct Recruitment and other by way of promotion on the basis of test at 50% each. According to the learned counsel as the petitioners were already in service, they were permitted to appear for Departmental Tests and therefore their appointment is only promotion and not direct recruitment.
14.The learned counsel further submitted that under the MACP Scheme the qualifying service of 10, 20 & 30 years is counted from the date of entry in department and not from the date of entry to a particular cadre, the counsel therefore submitted that the submission of the petitioners counsel in this aspect deserves no merit. The learned counsel with reference to the Judgment of the Rajasthan High Court and the Division Bench Judgment of this Hon'ble Court in D.Sivakumar case cited supra submitted that the said Judgments were taken by way of an appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal leaving open the question of law. Therefore according to the counsel the issue is still res integra. 13/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16818, 27455, 27677, 28860, 28985, 29265, 13963, 3501, 4992, 29272, 34266, 34268, 30111, 34301, 1145, 2014, 3195, 3196, 31272, 31643, 31644, 31897, 32130 of 2017, 88 of 2018 and 5294 of 2016
15.The respondents counsel with reference to the service books of the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had already availed the three financial upgradations viz., MACP I by promotion to the cadre of Postal Assistant from Postman & Group 'D' and MACP II by way of financial up- gradations under TBOP and MACP III by financial up-gradation under BCR. The counsel therefore submitted that the petitioners were given three financial up-gradations and they were not entitled to any further financial up- gradations under the MACP scheme.
16.The learned counsel for the respondents relied on the following Judgments.
1.M.V,Akkiniveeranan and Others Vs. Union of India, rep. By the Secretary, Ministry of Communications and IT, Department of Post and Others reported in 2019 SCC Online Mad 9326, and
2.Orders of High Court of Karnataka in the case of Union of India and Others Vs. Smt.R.K.Kulkarni in W.P.No.102322 of 2018 (S-CAT)
17.We have heard the respective counsels, perused the records 14/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16818, 27455, 27677, 28860, 28985, 29265, 13963, 3501, 4992, 29272, 34266, 34268, 30111, 34301, 1145, 2014, 3195, 3196, 31272, 31643, 31644, 31897, 32130 of 2017, 88 of 2018 and 5294 of 2016 and we are of the view that the issue involved in these batch of cases is within a very narrow sphere.
18.We have to determine whether the Recruitment of the petitioners to the Post of Postal Assistant from the post of Postman and other Group D Posts is by way of Promotion or Direct Recruitment.
19.Before we embark on the said exercise, we deem it necessary to extract the relevant Recruitment Rule of 1971 for the post of Postal Assistant.
SCHEDULE
Name of Classification Scale of Whether Age limit Educational
the posts Pay Selection for direct qualifications
post or recruitment and other
non- qualifications
selection for direct
post. recruits.
1 2 3 4 5 6
Time Scale General Rs.260-8- Not Between 18 Matriculation
Clerks and Central 300-EB-3- applicable and 25 years or equivalent
Sorters Service Class 340-10- on the 1st examination
excluding III, Non 360-12- July of the conducted by
the time gazetted 420-EB-12- year of a University
scale Ministerial 480 recruitment or Board of
clerks in any State.
15/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16818, 27455, 27677, 28860, 28985, 29265, 13963, 3501, 4992, 29272, 34266, 34268, 30111, 34301, 1145, 2014, 3195, 3196, 31272, 31643, 31644, 31897, 32130 of 2017, 88 of 2018 and 5294 of 2016 Telecomm unication Account branch Whether Period of Probation Method of In the case of If the DPs Circumstances age and recruitment recruitment exists, in which education whether by by promotion what is its UPSC to be al direct grades from compositio consulted qualificat recruitment which n ions or by promotion to prescribe promotion be made d for or transfer direct and recruits percentage will of vacancies apply in to be filled case of by various promotes methods 7 8 9 10 11 12 No Four years of (a) 50% by Promotion: Not Not applicable passing of the direct Permanent or applicable confirmation recruitment. quasi examination (b) 50% by permanent whichever is earlier. promotion officials Note:- In the case of through a below the direct recruits, test. time-scale failure to pass the clerical and confirmation sorters grade examination in six in chances within four accordance years result in their with the discharge from orders service while, in the case of departmental 16/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16818, 27455, 27677, 28860, 28985, 29265, 13963, 3501, 4992, 29272, 34266, 34268, 30111, 34301, 1145, 2014, 3195, 3196, 31272, 31643, 31644, 31897, 32130 of 2017, 88 of 2018 and 5294 of 2016 candidates they will be reverted to their former lower post.
20.A cursory look at the schedule to the Recruitment Rules makes it crystal clear that recruitment to the post of Postal Assistant is either by Direct Recruitment (50%) or promotion through Test (50%).
21.It is pertinent to note here that promotion through tests is restricted to in service candidates and further the age and educational qualifications prescribed for direct recruits is not applicable to promotees. Therefore, the recruitment through Direct Recruitment is a different method with its own prescribed rules. Once the petitioners admit that they wrote the departmental (Test) as Departmental candidates only, it is not possible to accept their contention that nevertheless recruitment is Direct. When a separate quota of 50% is earmarked for departmental candidates and it is admitted by the petitioners that they took the tests as departmental candidates it is incomprehensible to consider their recruitment as Direct Recruitment. The petitioners as departmental candidates form a separate class and on their 17/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16818, 27455, 27677, 28860, 28985, 29265, 13963, 3501, 4992, 29272, 34266, 34268, 30111, 34301, 1145, 2014, 3195, 3196, 31272, 31643, 31644, 31897, 32130 of 2017, 88 of 2018 and 5294 of 2016 passing the tests, they become a class within that class for whom 50% quota is reserved for promotion through tests.
22.It would be relevant to note here that the object of Departmental tests is to the ensure that those who would otherwise have to wait for years to get promotion are given an opportunity to fast track their chances of promotion and further it helps in the infusion of young blood in the organization. Therefore recruitment through Departmental Test is accelerated promotion. If this object of Departmental Tests is kept in mind, then absolutely there is no confusion and the only conclusion is that the recruitment through Departmental Test is only Promotion and not direct recruitment.
23.Further support can be drawn from column 8 of the Recruitment Rule, 1971 to hold that recruitment through Departmental Test is only Accelerated Promotion and not direct recruitment. Column 8 of the Recruitment Rules provides that Probation Period is four years from the date of confirmation examination. In the note to column 8 different consequences 18/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16818, 27455, 27677, 28860, 28985, 29265, 13963, 3501, 4992, 29272, 34266, 34268, 30111, 34301, 1145, 2014, 3195, 3196, 31272, 31643, 31644, 31897, 32130 of 2017, 88 of 2018 and 5294 of 2016 flow on failure to pass the confirmation examination in six chances within four years for direct recruits and Departmental candidates. Whereas for Direct Recruits the consequence is their discharge from service but for Departmental Candidates the consequence is revertion to their former lower Post. If the contention of the counsels for the petitioners is accepted, then on non-confirmation, even departmental promotees ought to be sent out instead of reverting them to lower posts. Therefore in our view when the Recruitment Rules are clear, there is no scope for any interpretation against the letter of the Rules.
24.It will be relevant to note here the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Director General Rice Research Institute, Cuttack & Another Vs. Khetra Mohan Das reported in 1994 (5) SLR 728. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the meaning of the word promotion held as follows:
“A promotion is different from fitment by way of rationalization and initial adjustment. Promotion as a generally understood; means; the 19/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16818, 27455, 27677, 28860, 28985, 29265, 13963, 3501, 4992, 29272, 34266, 34268, 30111, 34301, 1145, 2014, 3195, 3196, 31272, 31643, 31644, 31897, 32130 of 2017, 88 of 2018 and 5294 of 2016 appointment of a person of any category or grade of a service or a class of service to a higher category or Grade or such service or class. In C.C.Padmanabhan Vs. Director of Public Instructions, 1980 (Supp) SCC 668; (AIR 1981 SC 64) this Court observed that “Promotion” as understood in ordinary parlance and also as a term frequently used in cases involving service laws means that a person already holding a position would have a promotion if he is appointed to another post which satisfies either of the two conditions namely that the new post is in a higher category of the same service or that the new post carries higher grade in the same service or class.”
25.As also in the case of Tarsem Singh V. State of Punjab reported in 1994 (5) SCC 392 promotion was defined as follows:
“9. … Promotion as understood under the service law jurisprudence means advancement in rank, grade or 20/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16818, 27455, 27677, 28860, 28985, 29265, 13963, 3501, 4992, 29272, 34266, 34268, 30111, 34301, 1145, 2014, 3195, 3196, 31272, 31643, 31644, 31897, 32130 of 2017, 88 of 2018 and 5294 of 2016 both. Promotion is always a step towards advancement to a higher position, grade or honour.”
26.If the above said principles are applied to the facts of the present case it could be clear that the appointment of the petitioners as postal assistants is only promotion and not direct recruitment. The factual reasons for the said conclusion is not far to seek because the Postal Assistant is admittedly a higher post carrying higher scale and the appointment to the said post was by way of selection through Departmental Test. Therefore both legally and factually we conclude that the appointment of the petitioners to the post of Postal Assistants from the lower post of Postman and Group D is promotion and not direct recruitment.
27.We shall now begin to discuss the judgments produced by the learned counsel for the petitioners in support of their contention that the appointment of the petitioners to the post of Postal Assistants is only Direct Recruitment. We have gone through those Judgments and with great respects we find that in the cases cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the 21/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16818, 27455, 27677, 28860, 28985, 29265, 13963, 3501, 4992, 29272, 34266, 34268, 30111, 34301, 1145, 2014, 3195, 3196, 31272, 31643, 31644, 31897, 32130 of 2017, 88 of 2018 and 5294 of 2016 Recruitment Rules in question were neither referred to nor discussed. We have elaborately discussed the Recruitment Rules and also the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore we are not inclined to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners in this regard.
28.In so far as the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents are concerned, we are in agreement with the Judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of M.V.Akkiniveeranan and Others Vs. Union of India reported in 2019 SCC Online Mad 9326 and the Judgment of the Karnataka High Court (Dharwad Bench) in the case of The Union of India, represented by its the Secretary, Department of Posts, Dak Bhavan, New Delhi – 110001 and three others Vs. Smt.R.K.Kulkarni in W.P.No.102322/2018 (S-CAT). In the Division Bench Judgment of the Karnataka High Court Her Ladyship Mrs.Justice B.V.Nagarathna as Her Ladyship then was considered the very same issue in the said Judgment and after discussing the Rule position held that appointment to the post of Postal Assistants on passing the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) has to be considered as promotion and not direct recruitment. 22/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16818, 27455, 27677, 28860, 28985, 29265, 13963, 3501, 4992, 29272, 34266, 34268, 30111, 34301, 1145, 2014, 3195, 3196, 31272, 31643, 31644, 31897, 32130 of 2017, 88 of 2018 and 5294 of 2016
29.In view of the above facts and circumstances and the law, we are of the view that the writ petitioners having availed the promotion to the post of Postal Assistant from the lower post of Postman and Group D post, are not entitled to the grant of financial up-gradation under MACP III and they are also not entitled to the consequential benefits thereof.
30.In fine the batch of writ petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
[S.V.N.,J.] [N.M.,J.]
06.06.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
ah
To
1.Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Union of India, Tiruchirapalli Division, Tiruchirapalli – 620 001.
2.The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, 23/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16818, 27455, 27677, 28860, 28985, 29265, 13963, 3501, 4992, 29272, 34266, 34268, 30111, 34301, 1145, 2014, 3195, 3196, 31272, 31643, 31644, 31897, 32130 of 2017, 88 of 2018 and 5294 of 2016 Chennai – 600 001.
S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.
& N.MALA, J.
ah PRE DELIVERY ORDER IN W.P.No.16818, 27455, 27677, 28860, 28985, 29265, 13963, 3501, 4992, 29272, 34266, 34268, 30111, 34301, 1145, 2014, 3195, 3196, 31272, 31643, 31644, 31897, 32130 of 2017, 88 of 2018 and 5294 of 2016 24/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16818, 27455, 27677, 28860, 28985, 29265, 13963, 3501, 4992, 29272, 34266, 34268, 30111, 34301, 1145, 2014, 3195, 3196, 31272, 31643, 31644, 31897, 32130 of 2017, 88 of 2018 and 5294 of 2016 06.06.2022 25/25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis