Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
PETITIONER:
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
K.G KULKARNI ETC.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27/03/1997
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2671-75
(Arising out of SLP (c) Nos. 24175,25170-71 and 25172-73 of
1996)
O R D E R
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
These appeals by special leave arise from the order of
the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, made
on July 17,1996 in OA No.363/96.
The facts in appeal arising out of SLP No.23039 of
1996, are sufficient for disposal of all the appeals.
Therein, the admitted facts are that the respondent was
appointed in the year 1967 as a Sorter in the Railway Mail
service and has worked in different capacities since then at
different places At the relevant time, viz., February 15,
1993 onwards he was working as a clerk in the speed post
section of the Bangalore G.P.O. Recruitment to the post of
postal superintendent/postmasters, Group‘B’ was sought to be
made. since he was not given an opportunity to appear in the
examination for selection to the said post, he filed OA in
the Tribunal. The Tribunal, following the decision of this
court in Sawan Ram Malra vs. Union of India & Ors. [(1995)
Supp. 3 SCC 620], has set aside the examination and directed
the appellant authorities to conduct examination afresh.
Thus, these appeals by special leave.
It is see that under the schedule read with Rule 3 of
the Rules in operation, viz., the Department of posts,
Postal Superintendent/postmasters Group ‘B’ Recruitment
Rules 1987, the method of recruitment has been provided. In
Column 12 thereof, it is stated thus:
"By promotion:
(1) 94% from amongst officers
holding the post of Inspector, post
offices or Inspector, Railway
Mails".
Clause (2) thereof provides thus:
"6% from amongst General line of
officials by means of a
Departmental Competitive
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
Examination amongst officers
belonging to Higher Selection
Grade-I(scale of pay Rs.2000-3200/-
), Higher selection Grade-II (scale
of pay Rs.1640-2900/-) and Lower
selection Grade (scale of Pay
Rs.1400-2300) within 5 years
regular service in either or all
the 3 cadres together".
These Rules subsequently came to be amended in exercise
of power under proviso to Article 309 of the constitution
and became effective from June 29, 1994. There in, Rule 2
provides thus:
"In the Department of posts, postal
service Group ‘B’ Recruitment
Rules, 1987(hereinafter referred to
the ‘said’ Rules’), in the preamble
for the words "postal
superintendent/postmasters Group‘B’
the words and letter "postal
service Group‘B’ shall be
substituted"
Rule 4 provides the method of
selection thus:
"In the schedule of the said Rules
in column 12 for the existing
entries the following entries shall
be substituted viz.,
By Promotion:
75% of the total posts shall be
filled by promotion from amongst
Inspector of post offices and
Inspectors of Railway Mail services
(Pay scale Rs. 1400-2300/-) with
eight years’ regular service in the
grade"
Examinations for appointment by promotion are required
to be conducted , as indicated therein thus:
"Promotion by examination:
(i) 19% of the total posts shall
be filled on the basis of a
department competitive examination
from among the inspectors of post
offices and Inspectors of Railway
Mail service (Pay scale Rs.1400-
2300/-) with five years" regular
service in the grade.
(ii) 6% of the total posts shall be
filled on the basis of the same
departmental examination from
amongst clerical line officials
working in post Offices/Divisional
offices with five years’ regular
service in the Lower Selection
Grade and above."
The question, therefore, is whether the respondent,
working in the Railway Mail service, is covered under 19%
quota as provided in the column (i) or under 6% quota as
provided in the column (ii)? It is stated by the appellants
that the recruitment to the said post by promotion is to be
made from amongst the cadre of the Inspectors of Post
offices or Inspectors of Railway Mail service appointed in
the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300/- with five year’ regular
service; however, the respondent did not apply for the said
post under 19% quota under which he was not working in the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
post office or Divisional post offices in the regular
service, but was working in the speed post section in the
said post office; and continue to be governed by the RMS
Rules. Under these circumstances, he was not eligible to be
considered for selection to the said post in question . It
is contended that the Tribunal is not right in holding that
the ratio in the Sawan Ram Malra case applied to the facts
in this case. Therein, prior to the amendment of the Rules,
it was not specified that the candidates would be excluded
from the list of candidates eligible to apply for
consideration of appointment by promotion by qualifying
departmental competitive written examination . Paragraph of
the 1986 Rules clearly indicates that their eligibility for
promotion is to be considered according to the Rules. In
para 4, it is stated that "in the 1986 Rules, in the matter
of recruitment, there was no reference to officials in RMS.
The 1967 Rules expressly include "Inspector, Railway Mails"
in the matter of promotion to the 94% quota. RMS has
officials falling in General line . There are no words of
limitation in 1987 Rules in respect of General Line
officials so as to exclude General Line officials in the
RMS." Thus, it could be seen that in the absence of any
specific provision making some officials ineligible for
being considered for promotion by written examination, this
court held that the candidate eligible for selection from
the cadre of Inspectors, Railway Mails is equally eligible
to apply and to appear in the Departmental compartmental
competitive written examination.
However, in the present case, in view of the amendment
made in 1994, the line of officials was specified, namely,
clerks working in the post offices or Divisional offices.
The clerks working in the RMS, thereby, became ineligible
to be considered in 6% quota reserved for them. The
respondent did not apply against 19% quota to which he was
eligible. The Tribunal, therefore, is not right in setting
aside the examination already conducted. The conduct of the
examination afresh is not legal.
The appeals are accordingly, allowed. The order of the
Tribunal is set aside. No costs.