TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (4) TMI 859
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le enunciated in the judgment of this Court in P.N. Lal's case. The Union of India has filed an application for condonation of delay in filing application for directions, which has been numbered as I.A. No. 3/99. 2. After the disposal of C.A. No. 4339/ 95 by order dated 13.2.97, as the directions given therein had not been implemented, the Madras Telephone. SC/ST Social Welfare Association filed a contempt Petition, which was registered as Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 121/1999. When that application had been listed before a Bench of two learned Judges of this Court on 16.11.99, an application for intervention had been filed by 1 a group of officers and it was contended by the interveners that the judgment of this Court in C.A. No. 4339/95 has been rendered without noticing four earlier judgments, each one rendered by two Judge Bench. The said interveners had also filed an application for recalling the order dated 13.2.97 passed in C.A. No. 4339/95, on the ground that they were not party to the said appeal. In view of the conflict in different judgments of this Court, rendered by two Hon'ble Judges in each of the matters, the Bench hearing the matter on 16.11.99, passed an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....98, said Parmanand Lal, filed an application for interim relief, which has been registered as LA. Nos. 4 and 5 of 1999. 8. LA. No. 3/99, filed by the Union of India for condoning the delay stands allowed. 9. I.A. No. 10/2000, filed for intervention by four persons in LA. No. 2/99 stands allowed. 10. I.A. No. 9/99, filed by Parmanand Lal to intervene in the Contempt Petition No. 121/ 99 stands allowed. 11. I.A. No. 11/2000, filed by the Union of India for impleadment of Parmanand Lal and Brij Mohan stands allowed. 12. I.A. No. 12/2000, filed by Parmanand himself for intervention also stands allowed. 13. I.A. No. 2/99, filed by the Union of India for clarification, Contempt Petition (C) No. 121/99, filed by the Madras Telephone SC/ST Social Welfare Association, C.A. Nos. 6485-86 of 1998 filed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal, Bench, New Delhi and I.A. Nos. 4 & 5 of 1999, filed in C.A. Nos. 6485-86/98 for interim relief would stand disposed of by this common judgment. 14. The controversy between the parties centers round a question, as to how the selection list has to be drawn up for the purpose of promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to qualify in the examination the officials must obtain 10% of marks in each subject. 4. The detailed syllabus for the examination is indicated in Appendix No. 15A. 15. Under the aforesaid instructions all Junior Engineers, on completion of five years of service in Engineering Branch, were being permitted to appear at the departmental qualifying examination, provided they maintain a good service record, qualifying examination was intended to test the general ability of the Engineering Supervisors and pass in the said examination was essential pre-condition for promotion to the service in Class II. The promotion to Service in Class II was being made on the principle of seniority-cum-fitness. It also further stipulates that those of the supervisors who pass the qualifying examination earlier, would rank en bloc senior to those who pass the examination later but inter se seniority of supervisors, who pass the examination in one group was being determined according to their seniority in the cadre of Engineering Supervisor. The recruitment rules came into I force w.e.f. 15th of June, 1966, on being notified. Rule 5 of the Recruitment Rules I provides the method of recruitment to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ination for promotion earlier would rank en bloc senior to those, who pass the said qualifying examination at a later point of time. It may be stated that under paragraph (i) of the aforesaid instructions, it was incumbent for the authorities to prepare separate list for each year of recruitment of the persons from the feeder category. The recruitment rules were amended in the year 1987 and under the amended provisions, the criteria for selection is on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness. Thus, seniority plays an important role in the matter of promotion to the post of Class II Engineering Service. The Madras Telephone SC/ST Social Welfare Association had filed a writ petition in the High Court of Madras with the prayer that the eligibility list be prepared by determining the seniority on the basis of confirmation as Junior Engineer and that list should form the basis for promotion to Class II service. The aforesaid writ petition stood transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal under Section 29 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 and was finally disposed of by the Tribunal by Judgment dated 31.12.1986. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the year of recruitment for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 II and, 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 & Telegraphs Manual and against the said judgment, the Tele-communication Engineering Service As....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder the recruitment rules read with Schedule appended thereto and Appendix 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 been 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 prep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Memorandum dated 28th of June, 1966 and in accordance with the statutory recruitment rules read with Appendix attached thereto for promotion to the posts in Group "B" service, separate list has to be made in respect of each recruitment year. We have also held that after promulgation of the recruitment rules, the administrative instructions contained in paragraph 206 of the P & T Manual, will have no force. We have also indicated that the promotions already effected pursuant to the Judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which was upheld by this Court by dismissing the special leave petition filed by the Union of India will not be altered in any manner. This being the position and the Judgment of the Allahabad High Court in favour of Parmanand Lal having attained finality, he having received the benefit of the said Judgment and having been promoted, could not have been reverted because of some later Judgments and directions given either by the Tribunals or by this Court. On the admitted position that the applicant Parmanand was reverted by order dated 4.2.93 because of certain direction! ' given by some other Tribunals, deciding the principle of re-fixation of seniority and i....