Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The Allahabad High Court considered the grievances of the applicant before him viz. Parmanand Lal and Brij Mohan on the basis of instructions contained in Paragraph 206 of the P&T Manual and the provisions of the Recruitment Rules did not come up for, consideration. The Court ultimately had directed that the two petitioners before it viz. Parmananad Lal and Brij Mohan should be promoted with effect from the date prior to a date of promotion of any person, who passed the departmental examination, subsequent to them and adjust their seniority accordingly. When this Court dismissed the special leave petition filed by the Union of India, though it was stated that the special leave petition is dismissed on merits, but in the very next sentence the Court had indicated that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court was not inclined to interfere with the judgment of the High Court except to a limited extent. It is, therefore, obvious that while dismissing the special leave petition, the Court had not examined the provisions of the recruitment rules and the instructions issued thereunder, providing the procedure for promotion to the service in Class-Hand, therefore, there was no reason for the Union of India to think that what has been stated in Civil Appeal No. 4339 of 1995, runs contrary to the judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which stood affirmed by dismissal of the Special Leave Petition Nos. 3384-86 of 1986 on 8.4.1986. The Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi disposed of O.A. No. 2667 of 1991 and the Review Application filed before it as Review Application No. 195 of 1992 was disposed of by the Tribunal on 29th of June, 1992, following the views of the Allahabad High Court in interpreting Paragraph 206 of the Post and Telegraphs Manual and against the said judgment, the Telecommunication Engineering Service Association had preferred Special Leave Petition No. 16698 of 1992 and batch, which stood disposed of by judgment dated 13th of May, 1994. This Court came to hold that the Tribunal was right in following the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Parmanand's case which has become final by disposal of the Union Government's SLP against the same, which deals with the interpretation of paragraph 206 of the P&T Manual. This Court also took notice of another judgment of the Court dated 18th September, 1992 passed in T.P. (Civil) No. 417 of 1992 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 460 of 1992 along with S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 9063-64 of 1992. In the judgment of this Court dated 18th of September, 1992 in T.P. (Civil) No. 417 of 1992 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 460 of 1992 in the case of Junior Telecom Officers Forum and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., this Court was of the view that the controversy relates to the mode of Promotion to the Telecom Engineering service Group "B" as well as fixation of seniority of the Junior Telecom Officers/Assistant Engineers in that category and the preparation of eligibility or the approved list for the said purpose by the department in accordance with the recruitment rules and Paragraph 206 of the P & T Manual Volume. The Court no doubt has noticed the arguments advanced by placing reliance on the provisions of the recruitment rules of 1966 out ultimately came to the conclusion that the views of the Allahabad High Court has reached a finality because of the dismissal of the S.L.P. against the same and as such the eligibility required to be prepared in accordance with Paragraph 206 of the P & T Manual. The aforesaid conclusion is undoubtedly incorrect, as the judgment of the Allahabad High Court proceeded by interpreting Paragraph 206 of the P & T Manual, which was an administrative instruction which governed the field until promulgation of the recruitment rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. Once the statutory recruitment rules have come into force and procedure has also been prescribed under the said rules for preparation of the eligibility list of officers for promotion to the Engineering Service Class 11 by notification dated 28th of June, 1966, it is that procedure which has to be adopted and the earlier administrative instruction contained in Paragraph 206 of the P & T Manual cannot be adhered to. Under the recruitment rules read with Schedule appended thereto and Appcndix-I to the rules, the recruitment to the service in Class-II has to be made entirely by promotion on the basis of selection through a qualifying departmental examination. The Departmental Promotion Committee is duty bound to prepare an approved list by selection from amongst the officials who qualify in the departmental examination. In view of the amendment to the rules made on 4th of February, 1987, the criteria for selection is seniority-cum-fitness. In accordance with the prescribed procedure for preparation of eligibility list, notified by the Government on the 28th of June, 1966, the Departmental Promotion Committee has to prepare separate lists for each year of recruitment in the feeder category. In other words, if in 1958, the Departmental Promotion Committee is recommending people for promotion to Class II, then all the eligible candidates who had passed the departmental examination and who had b^en recruited in 1950, are to be listed separately from those officers who also have qualified departmental examination and were recruited in the year 1951 and so on and so forth. Once, separate lists are prepared by the Departmental Promotion Committee of the officers recruited in different recruitment years in the feeder category and the criteria for promotion being seniority-cum-fitness, then it would create no problem in promoting the officers concerned. As to the inter se position of the officials belonging to the same year of recruitment in the feeder category, the procedure to be adopted has been indicated in Paragraph (iii) of the Memorandum dated 28th of June, 1966. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment of this Court in Civil Appeal No. 4339 of 1995 had rightly been decided in interpreting the relevant provisions of the recruitment rules read with the procedure prescribed under the Memorandum dated 28th of June, 1966. We however, make it clear that the persons who have already got the benefit like Parmanand Lal and Brij Mohan by virtue of the judgments in their favour, they will not suffer and their promotion already made will not be affected by this judgment of ours.

Having regard to the above observations and clarification we have no doubt that such of the applicants whose to seniority and consequent promotion on the basis of the principles laid down in the Allahabad High Court's judgment in Parmanand Lal's case have been upheld or recognized by Court or Tribunal by judgments and order which have attained finality will not be adversely affected by the contrary view now taken in the judgment reported in 1997 (10) SCC 226. Since the rights of such applicants were determined in a duly constituted proceeding, which determination has attained finality, a subsequent judgment of a Court or Tribunal taking a contrary, view will not adversely affect the applicants in whose cases the orders have attained finality. We order accordingly.