Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Raj Pal vs Union Of India . on 5 October, 2016
Bench: Shiva Kirti Singh, R. Banumathi
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 9588-9589 OF 2013
RAJ PAL Appellant(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Heard Mr. Jagjit Singh Chhabra, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. A.K. Panda, learned senior counsel for the Union of India. The appellant has come against the orders dated 08th January, 2010 passed in Review Application No. 289 of 2010 and order dated 06th February, 2009 passed in Civil Writ Petition bearing CWP No. 17421 of 2007 by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The High Court by the impugned orders has decided the litigation in favour of Union of Signature Not Verified India and upheld their decision to grant promotion Digitally signed by NEELAM GULATI Date: 2016.10.08 10:58:38 IST Reason: to respondent Nos. 2 & 3 herein from the post of Senior Train Clerk to the post of Goods Guard. 2
2. The claim of the appellant is based upon an admitted fact that he is senior to respondent nos. 2 & 3 as Senior Train Clerk and that if the entire selection and promotion is made dependent solely upon the provisions contained in the Guidelines dated 19th December, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Guidelines'), this appellant having secured more than 60% marks and being senior to the concerned respondents would have a clear edge over the respondent nos. 2 & 3. In fact such claim of the appellant was accepted by the Central Administrative Tribunal vide judgment rendered on 27th July, 2007 in O.A. No. 988-HR-2005 whereby the Tribunal had quashed and set aside the selection and promotion orders qua the respondent nos. 2 & 3 herein and had directed to carry out a Review as per the observations in favour of the appellant and to prepare a fresh panel and make appointments therefrom. However, the High Court by the impugned order allowed the Writ Petition preferred by the respondent-Union of India and accepted their contention that the Guidelines did not contain all the relevant provisions governing such selection and 3 actual promotions. It was the case of Union of India that in spite of issuance of Guidelines under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the earlier circulars such as one dated 6th March, 1999 continued to hold the field. The High Court, on consideration of submissions of both the sides held that the provisions in the circular, particularly Note 3, applied to the facts of the case and being a special provision it would prevail over the general provisions in the guidelines.
3. Note 3 of the letter dated 06th March, 1999 has been extracted by the High Court and it provides as follows:
“3. If a particular category the requisite number of candidate is not selected the balance of the vacancies reserved for that category should be filled from other categories from amongst those who have secured highest marks in the orders of merit without reference to the category to which they belong.”
4. It is clear from the case of rival parties as well as the judgments rendered by the Tribunal and the High Court that in the given facts if Note 3 of the letter dated 06th March, 1999 has not stood superseded, the judgment of the High Court must be 4 treated as correct requiring no interference. The Note 3 of the letter dated 06th March, 1999 makes a departure from the principle of seniority and entitles only those who have secured highest marks in the order of merits to be transposed to the vacancies remaining unfilled in other categories. In the present case, the respondent nos. 2 & 3 have been carried over to unfilled posts which were unreserved and fell in other categories i.e. other than the category of Senior Train Clerks and Train Clerks.
5. We have considered the submissions of both the sides and perused the Guidelines as well as the letter dated 06th March, 1999 for the purpose of finding out whether the letter dated 06th March, 1999 stands superseded by the Guidelines dated 19th December,2002 or not. There is no express provision in the Guidelines for superseding the letter dated 06th March, 1999 or any other previous policy decision. It is not in dispute that if the entire field governed by the letter dated 06th March, 1999 came to be occupied by detailed and specific provisions in the Guidelines, there could be a 5 plausible case of implied repeal. However, a careful perusal of the Guidelines shows that there is no stipulation at all therein for meeting the situation covered by Note 3 of the letter dated 06th March, 1999. In such circumstances, it is not possible to accept the contention advanced on behalf of the appellant that the letter dated 06th March, 1999 stands superseded. In this view of the matter, we find no good reason to interfere with the impugned judgments and orders passed by the High Court.
6. The appeals are therefore dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
…..............J (SHIVA KIRTI SINGH) …..............J (R. BANUMATHI) NEW DELHI October 05, 2016 ITEM NO.106 COURT NO.11 SECTION IV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 9588-9589/2013 RAJ PAL Appellant(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) (with interim relief and office report) Date : 05/10/2016 These appeals were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI For Appellant(s) Mr. Jagjit Singh Chhabra,Adv.
Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, Adv.
Mr. Saksham Maheshwari, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. A.K. Panda, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Alka Agrawal, Adv.
Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed order.
(NEELAM GULATI) (MADHU NARULA)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file)