Full Judgment Text
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 61246125 OF 2019
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos.175176 of 2019)
The Superintendent of Post Offices .…Appellant(s)
& Ors.
Versus
Hanuman Giri ….Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
A.S. Bopanna,J.
Leave granted.
2. The appellants herein are assailing the order dated
19.07.2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad in Writ A.No.9549/2011. By the said order the
High Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the
appellants herein. The Review filed by the appellants was
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
MADHU BALA
Date: 2019.08.06
17:23:36 IST
Reason:
also dismissed through the subsequent order dated
21.08.2017. In that view, the order dated 05.10.2010
Page 1 of 15
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad
Bench, Allahabad, (“CAT” for short) in O.A.No.888/2009
as also the Order dated 17.01.2011 passed by the CAT in
Review Application No.77/2010 stands approved by the
High Court. It is in that view, the appellants are before
this Court assailing the above stated orders in these
appeals.
3. The brief facts which are to be noted limited for
consideration of these appeals are as hereunder.
4. The second appellant herein, namely, the Post
Master General, Kanpur Region, Kanpur, U.P. issued a
Notification dated 24.05.1991 inviting applications from
Extra Departmental Delivery Agents (“Delivery Agents” for
short) to appear in the examination to be considered for
promotion to the post of Postman. The respondent herein
and the other similarly placed Delivery Agents had
appeared in the examination held on 18.08.1991.
Pursuant to such Notification, the Chief Post Master
General, U.P. Circle at Lucknow issued an order dated
27.07.1992 informing the Director, Postal Services,
Page 2 of 15
Kanpur that the examination held on 18.08.1991 in
Banda, Fatehpur and Fatehgarh Division be cancelled.
Though the respondent herein did not assail the same,
certain other Delivery Agents including one Shri
Jagmohan Yadav, in all five applicants, challenged the
said order dated 27.06.1992 cancelling the examination
held for promotion, by approaching the CAT in O.A.
No.546/1992. The said O.A.No.546/1992 was disposed
of on 05.02.1997 wherein the CAT set aside the direction
issued by the Chief Post Master General dated
27.07.1992 and directed to publish the result of all
successful candidates to be promoted against 17
vacancies available in Kanpur Head Post Offices as per
Rules. The Review Application bearing No.33/1997 filed
by the appellants herein was dismissed through the order
dated 31.07.2000. Since the order of CAT had not been
complied with, the said Shri Jagmohan Yadav and four
others filed Contempt Application bearing No.135/2002
before the CAT. The nonconsideration of the Contempt
Application in an appropriate manner by the CAT had led
to the filing of the Civil Misc.Writ Petition No.12990/2004
Page 3 of 15
before the High Court, by the said Shri Jagmohan Yadav
and others. The said Writ Petition was allowed and the
matter was remitted to the CAT for consideration afresh
and in the said process the said Shri Jagmohan Yadav
was promoted as a Postman.
5. The genesis of the case being such, the respondent
herein also having appeared in the examination held on
18.08.1991 sought to take the benefit of the direction
issued by the CAT in O.A.No.546/1992 though he was
not a party therein. Accordingly he filed a representation
dated 02.07.2007 and claimed for promotion as a
Postman. The appellants herein did not consider the
same favourably but intimated him that he was not an
applicant in O.A.No.546/1992 and in that view the result
in the examination held for promotion was not declared.
The respondent, however, sought and obtained details of
his result through an application made under the Right
to Information Act, 2005 and on learning that he had
obtained 127.5 marks, at the outset was of the
impression that the said Shri Jagmohan Yadav who had
Page 4 of 15
been promoted was less meritorious though in fact he
had secured 137 marks out of 150 marks. It was further
the case of the respondent that through the said marks
since he was placed at Serial No.12 in the merit list and
there were 17 vacancies in Kanpur Head Post Office he
was entitled. Hence he sought for promotion as Postman
since according to him his rank in the merit list was
within the number of vacancies. The said claim of the
respondent herein was repudiated by the appellants
herein which resulted in respondent herein approaching
the CAT in O.A. No.888/2009.
6. In the said proceedings the appellants herein
opposed the claim of respondent herein. The CAT by
adverting to the rival contentions, through its order dated
05.10.2010, took note of the scope of the order passed in
O.A.No.546/1992 (relating to Shri Jagmohan Yadav and
others) based on which the respondent herein was
making a claim. Since the claim of respondent herein had
been declined by the appellants on the ground that he
was not the applicant in O.A.No.546/1992, the CAT by
Page 5 of 15
order dated 05.02.1997 had held that the order dated
27.07.1992 passed by the Chief Post Master General,
U.P. Circle for cancellation of the examination held in
Banda, Fatehpur and Fathegarh Division had been
quashed in its entirety. Hence, in that case since the
appellants herein were directed to declare the result of
the examination and give appointment to the successful
candidates, the CAT was of the opinion that the results
of all candidates who appeared for the examination
including that of the respondent herein ought to have
been announced and the promotions as Postman to the
17 vacancies in Kanpur Head Post Offices was required to
be made. In that view, on noticing that the same had not
been done by the appellant, the CAT directed
consideration of the case of the respondent herein. The
Review filed by the appellants herein against such order
was also dismissed. It is also to be noted that one of the
reasons which was also taken into consideration by the
CAT to accept the claim of the respondent herein was
that he claimed to have secured more marks than Shri
Page 6 of 15
Jagmohan Yadav who had secured the promotion in the
very same process that was undertaken.
7. The High Court while taking note of the
contentions put forth in the writ petition has adverted to
the very nature of the consideration made by the CAT as
taken note hereinabove and has approved the order
passed by the CAT. The Review Petition filed by the
appellants herein though was dismissed, one aspect of
the matter which got highlighted and clarified therein is
that the claim as put forth by the respondent that he was
more meritorious than Shri Jagmohan Yadav was not
the correct position inasmuch as the said Shri
Jagamohan Yadav had obtained 137 marks as against
127.5 marks obtained by the respondent herein.
However, the High Court was of the opinion that even if
that be the position, the basic consideration as made by
the CAT and taken note by it in its order does not get
altered. In that view the point that would remain for
consideration herein is, as to whether the claim of the
respondent herein that he was entitled to be promoted as
Page 7 of 15
he was at Serial No.12 in the merit list and as such he
would be one among the Delivery Agents to be promoted
against the vacancy of 17 posts of Postman is sustainable
?
8. We have extensively heard Shri Vikramjit Banerjee
learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the
appellants, Shri S.D. Singh learned counsel for the
respondent and perused the appeal papers including the
additional documents brought on record along with an
application. We have also taken note of the objections
raised by the learned counsel for the respondent
contending that the documents sought to be relied upon
in the instant proceedings is against the admitted factual
position. However, in a matter of the present nature
where the records are maintained by the employer,
unless the authenticity of the said document is in doubt,
there would be no impediment for this Court to take note
of the documents which are brought on record in an
appropriate manner.
Page 8 of 15
9. On the above basis we proceed to examine the
issue by taking note of all relevant material. In that
regard the basic document to be taken note is the
Notification dated 24.05.1991 through which the process
for promotion was set in motion. The same was
addressed to all Postmasters/Sub Post Masters/ Branch
Post Masters; to the Assistant Superintendent Post
Offices, Hamirpur and All Sub Divisional Inspectors in
Banda Division. On informing about the examination to
be held on 18.08.1991 it was further indicated that there
is no vacancy in Postman Cadre in this Division (which is
a reference to Banda Division as the said Notification is
issued from Banda Division). Hence qualified candidates
will have to go to other Divisions on availability of
vacancy. It further states that no candidate will be
posted in Banda Division in any circumstance. In our
view the said instructions as contained in the Notification
dated 24.05.1991 is to be kept in perspective while
examining the other aspects of the matter since from the
rival contentions it assumes significance and would be
relevant to take note so as to conclude whether the
Page 9 of 15
respondent herein should be promoted based on his rank
in the merit list at Serial No.12 relating to Banda Division
or as to whether the vacancy position is to be taken note
in the background of the common merit list relating to
the Delivery Agents of all Divisions against the 17
vacancies in Kanpur Head Post Offices. Though the
learned counsel for the respondent seeks to contend that
the position of the respondent being at Serial No.12 has
been admitted in all earlier proceedings and the
appellants cannot be allowed to resile from the said
position, it would be necessary to examine as to whether
the merit of the respondent at Serial No.12 relates to the
common merit list of all divisions or as to whether he
was at Serial No.12 of the merit list limited to Banda
Division. Such consideration, in our view, is necessary
as it is the only issue which is germane for the purpose of
decision making herein.
10. In that background, as already taken note by us
the genesis of the case being a consideration made in
Page 10 of 15
O.A.No.546/1992 it would be necessary to take note of
the nature of consideration made therein. In the said
proceedings, the applicants therein namely, Shri
Jagmohan Yadav and others while assailing the action of
appellants herein had contended that the candidates of
Banda Division could be posted against the unfilled
vacancies of Kanpur Head Post Offices and Kanpur City
Postal Division. It is no doubt true that the appellants
herein in order to oppose the said contention had stated
in the said proceedings that the 17 left over vacancies of
Kanpur Head Post Offices which is GroupA Post Office
are to be filled from Local Postal Division as per the
extant rules and cannot be filled by the staff of other
Divisions. The conclusion reached by the CAT after
taking note of the rules is that there was no averment by
the respondent that those 17 vacancies of Kanpur Head
Post Offices have been filled from the other Local
Divisions or any other Division. By an implication it was
noted that no more selected staff was available for filling
up the balance 17 vacancies from Delivery Agents of
Kanpur Local Postal Division. In that circumstance, it
Page 11 of 15
was held that on declaration of the result the staff of
Banda Division can also be eligible to be considered for
17 vacancies of Kanpur Head Post Offices as per Rules.
It was, therefore, held therein that the stand taken by the
appellants herein to the effect that vacancies of Kanpur
Head Post Offices cannot be filled by the staff of other
Divisions than those located at Kanpur is not tenable. In
that circumstance, it was directed that the results of
other candidates from all Divisions is to be declared and
the 17 posts are to be filled up. It was precisely held as
hereunder:
“In the present case as we have held earlier,
17 vacancies of Kanpur Head Post Offices
were left unfilled and the same should have
been filled by successful staff of Banda
Division or any other Division as applicable.”
11. Therefore, the basis on which the consideration
was made subsequent thereto including promotion of
Shri Jagmohan Yadav, though belatedly, was based on
Page 12 of 15
the marks obtained in the merit list. On that aspect it is
to be taken note that though the merit list of Fatehpur
Division, Fatehgarh Division and Banda Division are
separately maintained, a common merit list of Delivery
Agents in respect of Kanpur Region which includes
Fatehpur Division, Fatehgarh Division and Banda
Division relating to the examinations conducted in the
year 1991 was also maintained. As noticed, the very
Notification dated 24.05.1991 indicates that though the
examinations are held the qualified candidates will have
to go to other Divisions on availability of vacancy as there
was no vacancy of Postman in Banda Division. If that be
the position in respect of the unfilled 17 vacancies of
Kanpur Head Post Offices, the persons in order of merit
from all Divisions including Banda Division wherein the
respondent was working would be entitled to be
considered based on common merit list.
12. In that situation though in the merit list of Banda
Division Shri Jagmohan Yadav was at Serial No.1 and the
Page 13 of 15
respondent herein was at Serial No.12, in the common
merit list Shri Jagmohan Yadav was at Serial No.2 while
the respondent herein was at Serial No.43. The total
marks obtained by the candidates would indicate that the
person at Serial No.17 in the said common merit list had
obtained 131 marks and after the said candidate there
are several other candidates who had obtained marks up
to 128, after which the respondent having obtained 127.5
is at Serial No.43. In such situation ignoring the others,
the respondent herein in any event cannot be promoted.
Hence the consideration made by the CAT in favour of the
respondent herein would not be justified. Though
ultimately in the Review Petition before the High Court
the fact that the respondent had not secured more
marks than Shri Jagmohan Yadav was taken note and
was clarified that even otherwise the direction issued was
appropriate, we find that despite all the factors as noticed
above it appears that what weighed in the mind of the
CAT in O.A.No.888/2009 was a wrong assumption of the
respondent being more meritorious than the candidate
who was granted benefit due to the earlier orders.
Page 14 of 15
13. If that be the position, the orders impugned herein
are not sustainable. Therefore, the order dated
17.01.2011 passed in O.A.No.888/2009 and the order
dated 17.01.2011 passed in Review Application
No.77/2010 by the CAT as also the order dated
19.07.2013 passed in Writ Appeal No.9549/2011 and the
order dated 21.08.2017 passed in Review Petition
No.285160/2013 by the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad are set aside.
14. Accordingly, the instant appeals are allowed with
no order as to costs. All pending applications also stand
disposed of.
……………………….J.
(R. BANUMATHI)
……………………….J.
(A.S. BOPANNA)
New Delhi,
August 06, 2019
Page 15 of 15