http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: SAWAN RAM MALRA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT13/09/1995

BENCH: AGRAWAL, S.C. (J) BENCH: AGRAWAL, S.C. (J) BHARUCHA S.P. (J)

CITATION:  JT 1995 (7)   334        1995 SCALE  (5)348

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T S.C. AGRAWAL, J. :      Leave granted.      The short  question which  arises for  consideration in this  appeal  is  whether  the  appellant  is  eligible  for promotion to  Postal Superintendents/ Post-masters Group ‘B’ posts under the six per cent quota reserved for promotion of General Line  Officials by means of Departmental competitive examination  as   per  the   Department  of   Posts,  Postal Superintendent/Postmasters Group ‘B’ Recruitment Rules, 1987 [hereinafter referred  to as ‘the 1987 Rules’]. Prior to the making of  the 1987  Rules there  were two  services in  the Department of Posts, viz., the Postal Superintendent Service Group ‘B’ and the Postmasters Service Group ‘B’ was governed by  the   Postal  Superintendent  Service  Group  ‘B’  Posts (Recruitment) Rules,  1979 [hereinafter  referred to as ‘the 1979 Rules’]  and recruitment  to  the  Postmasters  Service Group ‘B’  was governed by the Postmasters Service Group ‘B’ (Recruitment) Rules,  1986 [hereinafter  referred to as ‘the 1986 Rules’].  By the  1987 Rules  the 1979  Rules and  1986 Rules were  superseded and  the two cadres were merged and a common cadre  of Postal  Superintendents/Postmasters Service Group ‘B’  was created  and recruitment  to the  said common cadre is governed by the 1987 Rules. Appointment to the post of  Postal   Superintendent/Postmasters  Group   ‘B’  is  by promotion in the following manner :      "By promotion      (1)  94% from  amongst officers  holding      the post of    Inspector, Post   Offices      or Inspector, Railway Mails :-      (i)  with 5  years’ regular  service  in      the  scale  of  Rs.1640-2900,  including      service in the scale of Rs.2000-3200, if      any or equivalent; failing which      (ii) with 8 years regular service in the      scale  of   Rs.1400-2300  or   above  or

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

    equivalent.      (2)  6% from  amongst  General  Line  of      officials by  means  of  a  Departmental      competitive examination amongst officers      beloging  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)  with  5      years’ regular  service in either or all      the 3 cadres together."      At the  relevant time,  the appellant  was employed  as Head Sorting Assistant (HSA) in Higher Selection Grade II in the Railway Mails Service (RMS). In response to the circular dated  August   12,  1988,  calling  for  applications  from eligible  candidates   for  the   Departmental   competitive examination   for    filling   up   6%   posts   of   Postal Superintendents/Postmasters Service  Group ‘B’  reserved for General  Line   Officials  the   appellant   submitted   his application. The  said  application  was  accepted  and  the appellant was permitted to take the Departmental competitive examination held  in October 1988. Although 11 vacancies had been declared  for the  year 1988-89 a merit list containing names of  10 officers  was issued. The name of the appellant was not  included in the said list though he had secured 67% marks. He  was subsequently  informed that  his name was not included in the merit list because General Line officials in the RMS are not eligible for promotion against 6% posts. The appellant  thereupon   moved  the   Central   Administrative Tribunal [hereinafter  referred to  as ‘the  Tribunal’]. The Tribunal, by  the impugned  judgment dated January 19, 1994, has dismissed  the said  application of  the appellant.  The Tribunal has  upheld the  contention urged  on behalf of the respondents that in view of the clarifications issued by the Department vide  letters dated  January 30,  1987, March  9, 1987 and  the Savingram  dated April  24, 1987  only General Line Officials  working in  the Post Offices are eligible to participate in  the Departmental competitive examination for promotion to  6% Group  ‘B’  posts  and  that  General  Line Officials working in RLO/RMS/SPCO/PSD and foreign posts were not eligible.  The Tribunal  has held that the appellant was admitted to  the examination  by mistake  overlooking  those instructions. Feeling  aggrieved by the said judgment of the Tribunal, the appellant has filed this appeal.      The question is whether the clarifications contained in the letters  dated January  30, 1987,  March 9, 1987 and the Savingram dated  April 24, 1987 can be held to be applicable to  the   1987  Rules   so  as   to  render   officials   in RLO/RMS/SPCO/PSD ineligible  for promotion against the quota of 6%  posts through  Departmental competitive  examination. These clarifications  had been issued prior to the making of the 1987  Rules, which were notified vide notification dated March 11,  1988. The  clarifications in  the  communications referred to  above were issued in relation to the 1986 Rules that  were  prevalent  at  that  time  which  contained  the following provisions  regarding promotion  to  the  post  of Postmasters Service Group ‘B’ :      "Promotion      i)   25%   posts   from   General   Line      officers  by   means   of   departmental      competitive     examination      amongst      officials belonging  to Higher Selection      Grade (Rs.700-900)  and Higher Selection      Grade-II  (Rs.550-750)   with  5   years      regular service  in either  or both  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

    grades and  officials belonging to lower      selection  grade   (Rs.425-640)  with  8      years regular service in the grade.      ii)  75%   posts    from   amongst   the      inspectors of  post offices (Rs.425-700)      with 8 year regular service in the grade      including the  regular  service  in  the      grades  of   Higher  Selection  Grade-II      (Rs.550-750) and  the  Higher  Selection      Grade-I (Rs.700-800)."      If  the   aforesaid  provisions   regarding   promotion contained in the 1986 Rules are compared with the provisions of the  1987 Rules  it would  be noticed  that  there  is  a substantial difference  in the  scheme of  the two  sets  of provisions.  The   1987  Rules  govern  recruitment  to  the combined cadre  of Postal  Superintendent Service  Group ‘B’ and Postmasters  Service Group ‘B’ while the 1986 Rules only governed the  cadre of Postmasters Service Group ‘B’. In the 1986 Rules,  in  the  matter  of  promotion,  there  was  no reference to  officials in the RMS. The 1987 Rules expressly include  "Inspector,   Railway  Mails"   in  the  matter  of promotion to the 94% posts. RMS has officials falling in the General Line.  There are  no words of limitation in the 1987 Rules in  respect of  "General line  of officials"  so as to exclude General  Line officials  in the  RMS. If Inspectors, Railway Mails,  are eligible  for promotion  against the 94% posts there  appears  to  be  no  reason  why  General  Line Officials in  the RMS  should be excluded for the purpose of promotion to  6% posts  which are  to be  filled by means of Departmental competitive  examination. On  a bare reading of the provisions  of the 1987 Rules all General Line Officials who  belong  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) with 5 years’ regular service in either or all the 3  cadres together  are eligible  to be  promoted to  6% posts by  means of the Departmental competitive examination. The clarifications  contained in  the letters  dated January 30, 1987,  March 9,  1987 and  the Savingram dated April 24, 1987 which  were issued in relation to the 1986 Rules cannot be treated  as supplemental  to the  provisions contained in the 1987  Rules and  on the basis of the said communications it cannot  be said  that General  Line Officials in the RMS, including the  appellant, are  not  eligible  for  promotion against  the   6%  posts   by  means   of  the  Departmental competitive examination. We are, therefore, unable to uphold the impugned judgment of the Tribunal. The appellant, in our opinion, was entitled to be considered for promotion against the said  6% posts  on the  basis of  his performance in the Departmental competitive examination held in October 1988 in which he  was allowed to appear. By letter dated October 14, 1990 the  result of  the appellant  for the said examination was announced  and he  was added  in the  list  of  selected candidates at Serial No.9. This would show that on the basis of  his   performance  in   the   Departmental   competitive examination held  in October 1988 the appellant was selected and but  for his  being treated  as ineligible for promotion against  the   6%  posts   by  means   of  the  Departmental competitive examination,  he would  have  been  promoted  to those posts along with others who were selected on the basis of the said examination.      The appeal  is therefore,  allowed, the judgment of the Tribunal dated  January  19,  1994  is  set  aside  and  the respondents  are  directed  to  consider  the  case  of  the appellant for promotion to the Postal Superintendent Service

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

Group ‘B’/Postmasters  Service Group  ‘B’ against  6%  posts reserved from amongst General Line Officials on the basis of the  result  of  the  Departmental  competitive  examination conducted in October 1988 in pursuance of the circular dated March 11,  1988. If  the appellant is found entitled to such promotion on  the basis  of  his  performance  in  the  said Departmental competitive  examination he  should be promoted with effect  from the date other persons were so promoted on the basis  of  the  result  of  the  said  examination.  The appellant would  be entitled  to the  consequential benefits accruing to him as a result of such promotion.      The appeal  is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.

9225