Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The whole controversy was set in motion when a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court rendered a judgment in the case of Parmanand Lal and Brij Mohan v. Union of India (WP Nos Nos. 2739 and 3652 of 198 1981, decided by the Lucknow Bench on 20.2.1985).

20.2.1985) The claim made by Parmanand and his associates in the aforesaid petition was that he had been wrongly placed in the eligibility list below the last person who passed the qualifying examination in the year 1975, whereas he had qualified the examination held in the year 1974. The writ petition was allowed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court holding that those who qualified the departmental examination earlier were entitled to be promoted prior to those who qualified it later irrespective of their inter se & connected petitions seniority in the cadre of Engineering Supervisor @ Junior Engineer. The Division Bench further held that there was no conflict between Paragraph 206 of the P&T Manual either with the 1966 Rules or any other rules. Against the aforesaid Division Bench judgment, Special Leave Petition Nos. 2284-86 of 1986 (Union of India and others v. Parmanand Lal and others) was dismissed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court on 8.4.1986 and accordingly the view of the Allahabad High Court attained finality.

(supra) Learned counsel has emphasised that the special leave petition was dismissed in the facts and circumstances of that case and no general principle of law was laid down. The aforesaid order dated & connected petitions 8.4.1996 dismissing the special leave petition of the petitioner- BSNL against the Division Bench judgment of Allahabad High Court in Parmanand Lal and Brij Mohan (supra) is available on record (R-4). Learned counsel then pointed out that the judgment in Parmanand Lal and Brij Mohan (supra), (supra) in any case has been overruled in the 2000 Madras case (supra) and, therefore, no benefit could be derived from the judgment in Parmanand Lal's case (supra) and the applicant-respondents were erroneously promoted in the year 1993. He has also relied upon various observations made in the judgment in 2000 Madras case (supra) to reiterate their stand and argued that this judgment put the proposition of law beyond any reasonable doubt that the seniority of Telegraph Engineering Service Class II has to be determined not on the basis of the date of passing the examination as was provided in Paragraph-206 of the P&T Manual but in accordance with the 1966 Rules.

(supra) The contention of the petitioner-BSNL has been rejected when it was argued that the benefit of the judgment in Parmanand Lal and Brij Mohan (supra) was restricted only to those who were parties to particular petitions. In that regard specific reliance has been made on the observations & connected petitions made in paras 15 and 16.

17. Another submission advanced by the learned counsel for the promotee respondents is that the seniority and promotion ordered in their favour in the year 1993, in pursuance to the Division Bench judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of Parmanand Lal and Brij Mohan Mohan (supra), cannot be snatched and adversely affected by the later decision rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in 2000 Madras case (supra) and 2006 Madras case (supra).

(supra) Therefore, their inter se seniority vis-a-vis the Exclusive Club of 45 Telegraph Engineers must be fixed after giving them the benefit of the Division Bench judgment rendered in the case of Parmanand Lal and Brij Mohan (supra).

(supra) The benefit has enured to them in the year 1993 in pursuance of order dated 28.2.1992 passed by the Principal Bench of the Tribunal. According to them the aforesaid facts are clearly reflected in the various seniority lists. As a corollary of the aforesaid argument, a reference to the undertaking dated 27.2.1992 filed by the Department of Telecommunication (DoT) before the Principal Bench of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has highlighted that the anomaly in the seniority of the Telecommunication Engineering Service Group B has arisen on account of implementation of the decision in respect of limited number of Telecommunication Engineering Service Group B officers who have gone to the Tribunal in respect of implementation of the entire order instead of its implementation to the entire cadre of Telecommunication Engineering Service. It has been further submitted that the Supreme Court had upheld the decision passed by the Principal Bench of the Tribunal. The DoT in its undertaking had stated before the Tribunal that the proposal to & connected petitions revise the seniority of entire cadre of Telecommunication Engineering Service Group B officers in accordance with Paragraph- 206 of the P&T Manual was under consideration of the department and it was likely to take some time as the total cadre exceeded 10000. It was on account of the aforesaid undertaking that a number of respondents did not initiate any proceeding either in the Tribunal or the High Court or before the Supreme Court, especially when their seniority was fixed as per the principles laid down in the Division Bench judgment of Allahabad High Court rendered in the case of Parmanand Parmanand Lal and Brij Mohan (supra) on the basis of the undertaking given by the petitioner-BSNL. Accordingly, it is claimed that the respondents fulfilled all the conditions laid down in various judgments, namely, that there is order dated 28.2.1992 passed by the Principal Bench of the Tribunal on the basis of undertaking dated 27.2.1992 and the observations made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in that regard in the case of Telecommunication Engineering Service Association (Regd.) [supra].