Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4
PETITIONER:
JAHAR SINGH
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13/09/1996
BENCH:
MUKHERJEE M.K. (J)
BENCH:
MUKHERJEE M.K. (J)
KURDUKAR S.P. (J)
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
M.K. MUKHERJEE. J.
Special Leave granted. Heard the learned counsel for
the parties.
At all material times the appellant was - and still is
- an employee of the Savings Bank Control Organization
(SBCO), Uttar Pradesh Circle, under the Ministry of
Communications, Department of Posts, New Delhi. In May, 1992
while working in the Agra Head Post Office he appeared in
the examination held for appointment of Accountants in the
Post Office (PO) and Railway Mail Services (RMS); and the
Senior Superintendent of Post Officers, Agra Division, Agra
vide his letter No. 82/Exam/PO and RMS/Accountant/92 dated
November 30, 1992 informed him that he had qualified for
that post. The appellant, however, did not get any
appointment to the post of Accountant in spite of his such
qualification and, on the contrary, on August 26, 1993, he
received a copy of letter dated July 23, 1993 sent by Shri
A.K. Kaushal, an Assistant Director General in the office of
the Director General (Posts), New Delhi, to Shri Jagadamba
Singh ADOS (Rectt.) attached to the office of the Chief Post
Master General, U.P. Circle, intimating him that as he (the
appellant was working in SBCO as an LDC (Lower Division
Clerk) he was not eligible to appear for the PO and RMS
Accountant examination and his candidature may be canceled
immediately. Since this letter has an important bearing on
this appeal we quote the same in extenso :-
"A.K. KAUSHAL
ASST. DIR. GENL. (SPN)
141-230/92-SPB-II 23.7.93
Dear Shri Singh,
Please refer to your d.o.
letter no. Rectt./M-67/May-92/3
dated 4.5.93 regarding posting of
Shri Jahar Singh, SBCO Agra H.P.O
as Accountant.
2. The water has been examined.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4
Since Shri Jahar Singh was working
in SBCO as LDC he was not eligible
to appear for the PO & RMS
Accountant Exam as per rules. The
candidature of Shri Jahar Singh may
be canceled immediately and he
cannot, therefore, be considered
for appointment as an Accountant.
With best wishes,
Yours sincerely
(A.K. KAUSHAL)
Shri Jadamba Singh,
A.D.O.S. (Rectt.)
O/o the Chief Postmaster General,
U.P. Circle,
LUCKNOW
Copy to :
1. The PMG Agra Region, Agra.
2. Shri Jahar Singh, PA (SBCO) Agra
H.P.O with reference to his letter
dated 28.3.1993 addressed to Member
(D), Department of Posts, Dal
Bhavan, New Delhi.
(A.K. KAUSHAL)
Asstt. Director General (SPN)"
(emphasis supplied)
Against such cancellation of his candidature the
appellant made representation to the Director General of
Posts, New Delhi which was rejected. He then filed an
original application in the Central Administrative Tribunal.
(CAT) Allahabad Bench wherein he asserted that though his
initial appointment in 1983 was an LDC in SBCO, since August
1, 1991 he was working there as Personal Assistant (PA) and
the permission that was granted to him to appear in the
examination for appointments as an Accountant was
unqualified - and not provisional. He, therefore, submitted
that the respondents were not justified in rejecting his
claim for appointment to that post after his success in the
examination.
In contesting the application the respondents
reiterated that the appellant was working as an LDC at the
time he appeared for the examination. The other contention
that was raised on their behalf was that even the PAs of
SBCO acquired an identity of its own after it (SBCO) was
reorganized with effect from August 1, 1991 with a different
and distinct channel of promotion which did not entitle them
to become Accountants in PO and RMS under the extant Rules.
In disposing of the application the Tribunal observed
though from the admitted facts of the case it was apparent
that the appellant was allowed to appear in the examination
for appointment as an Accountant by mistake as he belonged
to as separate cadre, the respondents were not justified in
canceling his candidature as he was a bona fide candidate
and there was no lapse on his part. It further observed that
no rules or circulars were brought to its notice which
empowered the respondents to cancel his candidature.
Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the order dated July 23,
1993 canceling the candidature of the appellant as
Accountant and all orders made pursuant thereto. Inspire
thereof, the Tribunal did not grant the relief sought for by
the appellant on the ground that he had become ineligible
for promotion to the post of Accountant by virtue of
separation of cadres of Assistants of SBCO from those PO and
RMS. Dissatisfied with the above order the appellant filed a
review application contending that after having quashed the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4
order of cancellation of his candidature the Tribunal was
not justified in refusing him the consequential relief of
being appointed as Accountant in PO and RMS. The Tribunal,
however, rejected the application observing that even a
defective reasoning of an order could not be made the basis
for setting aside the same in review. Hence this appeal at
the instance of the appellant.
Besides, reiterating the contentions raised before the
Tribunal Mr. Murlidharan, the learned submitted, relying
upon the averments made by the appellant in the
supplementary affidavit he filed in this Court, that in the
contention of the respondents that PAs of SBCO were not
eligible for appointment to the post of Accountants in PO
and RMS was patently untrue for in the following year (1993)
also PAs of SBCO were permitted to appear in the examination
held for the above post. In opposing the above contentions
Mr. Choudhary, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
respondents, assailed the finding of the Tribunal that the
appellant was not entitled to the post of Accountant in the
PO and RMS, as SBCO has a distinct identity and separate of
promotion.
To appreciate the respective contentions of the parties
we have carefully gone through the entire materials on
record and the only conclusion we draw therefrom is that the
respondents have taken different and contradictory stands
only to forestall the claim of the appellant and Shri
Kaushal, who was filed affidavits on their behalf, has made
patently incorrect and untrue statements therein .
From a cursory glance of the letter dated July 23, 1993
written by Sri kaushal (reproduced earlier) it is apparent
that the only ground that was canvassed by the respondents
to cancel the candidature of the appellant was that he was
working in SBCO as LDC. In the affidavit that Shri Kaushal
filed in this Court on December 9, 1995, while opposing the
special leave petition of the appellant, he reiterated.
"He (the appellant) wrongly
mentioned in his application
(obviously referring to his
application seeking permission to
appear in the examination) that he
was Postal Assistant and
inadvertently he was allowed to sit
in the examination . When it was
realised that the permission given
to him was contrary to the rules it
was rightly canceled and naturally
he was not entitled to any
consequential benefits."
That the above stand of the respondent, as put forward
through the affidavit of Shri Kaushal, is unfounded will be
apparent, first from the letter dated July 23, 1993 itself
wherein, while indication that a copy of the letter was
being forwarded to the appellant his designation was shown
as PA (SBCO) Agra HPO - and not LDC - and secondly, from the
following statement made by Shri Kaushal in paragraph 3 of
his affidavit filed in this Court in March 29, 1996.
"It is submitted that the
petitioner Sri Jahar Singh is a
Postal Assistant in Savings Bank
Control Organization ..........."
Since the post the appellant was holding was made the
sole basis for canceling his candidature as the letter dated
July 23, 1993 clearly demonstrates the above discussion of
ours would have been sufficient to allow this appeal but as
later on the respondents took the organisational
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4
ineligibility of the appellant to appear in the examination
as a further ground for such cancellation we advert to the
same. In canvassing this ground it has been stated by Shri
Kaushal in the affidavit on December 9, 1995 as under :
"It is further submitted that
according to Rule 273 of Postal
Manual Vol. IV Postal Assistants
and Sorting Assistants, Railway
Mail Service are eligible for
appearing in the examination of
Post Office and Railway Mail
Service Accountants. The petitioner
belongs to Saving Bank Control
Organization Unit of Post Office
and thus he was not entitled to
appear in the said examination held
in May, 1992. The petitioner (the
appellant) was inadvertently
permitted because on his
application form he had written his
designation as Postal Assistant,
SBCO."
Apart from the above Rule, reliance has also been
placed on a circular dated July 26, 1991 issued by the
Assistant Director General, Government of India, Ministry of
Communications, Department of Posts, which refers to the
proposed reorganisation of the SBCO with effect from August
1, 1991 and particular emphasis laid on Para (viii) thereof
which reads that "Consequent upon reorganisation, the
distinct identity of the SBCO will be maintained and Postal
Assistants (SBCO) will not be interchangeable with the
Postal Assistants of the Post Office."
The above additional ground of the respondents so far
it seeks to justify the cancellation of the candidature of
the appellant as an Accountant even after he was given
permission to appear in the examination in which he came
successful is also without any substance. The averment in
the above quoted paragraph that the permission was
’inadvertently’ granted because the appellant had wrote in
his application form that his designation was P.A., SCBO
is patently incorrect for on the showing of the respondents
(as discussed earlier) the appellant was holding that post.
Besides, in spite of the above Rules and Circular, two PAs
of SBCO, Auriya Office, namely, Satya Prakash and H.C. Ram
were permitted to appear in the PO and RMS examination held
in the year 1993 for appointment of Accountants as will be
evident from the supplementary affidavit filed by the
appellant on February 23, 1996. It is pertinent to mention
here that in the affidavit that Shri Kaushal filed later on
March 29, 1996, he did not dispute the above assertion of
the appellant, nor give any explanation as to why such
permission was granted to them in spite of above Rules and
Circular.
For the foregoing discussion we quash the impugned
order dated July 23, 1993 and direct the respondents to
grant all the benefits which the appellant would be entitled
to consequent upon his having been declared successful in
the examination held on May 22, 1996. The appeal is thus
allowed with costs, quantified at Rs. 5,000/-