Holding

In the absence of a specific provision, the general rule of length of service determines seniority for promotion, and P&T Manual paragraph 206 does not apply to the Civil Engineering cadre.

Summary

The appellants, Junior Engineers (Civil) in the Telecommunication Department, passed the departmental qualifying examination for promotion to Assistant Engineer (Civil) and were placed at lower seniority positions in the list prepared by the department. They challenged the seniority list before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which upheld the list, and then appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court examined whether the Post & Telegraph (P&T) Manual, paragraph 206, which governs inter‑se seniority for Wireless services, applied to the Civil Engineering cadre governed by the 1976 Recruitment Rules. Finding no express provision in the 1976 Rules on inter‑se seniority and concluding that paragraph 206 does not extend to the Civil Engineering cadre, the Court applied the general principle that seniority is determined by length of service. Consequently, the Court held that candidates who passed the exam earlier in the same year are not entitled to seniority over later passers, and promotion must be based on length of service. The appeals were dismissed.

Issues considered

The applicability of P&T Manual paragraph 206 to the Civil Engineering (Civil Gazetted Officers) cadre for determining inter‑se seniority.
Whether the 1976 Post & Telegraph Civil Engineering Recruitment Rules contain a provision for inter‑se seniority among candidates passing the qualifying examination in the same year.
Whether, in the absence of a specific rule, the general principle of length of service should govern promotion seniority.

Subjects

service lawpromotioninter se seniorityPost and Telegraph ManualRecruitment Rules 1976length of serviceCivil Engineering cadre

Judgment

SATPAL ANTIL AND ANR. A
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

MAY 5, 1995

[P.B. SAWANT AND G.N. RAY, JJ.] B

Service Law :

Post and Telegraph Civil Engineering (Civil Gazetted Officers) Recmit-
ment Rules, 1976 :
c
Chapters 5 to 8-Junior Engineer (Civilj-:--Promotion to the post of
Assistant Engineer (Civil}-Departmental Examinatio1t-Inter-se seniority be-
tween the candidates passing the examination in the same year-Determina-
tion of-No express provision in the mies-Held.' general principles of length
of service as a basis for promotion will be applicable. D
Post and Telegraph Manual :

Para 206 Vol.IV-Noi applicable to Civil Engineering Cadre-Seniority
of candidates passing the examination in the same year but at different point
of time-Fixation of-No provision exists in the manuaf-ffe/d: candidate E
passing the examination in the same year but at a different point of time
cannot be by passed for promotion.

The appellants were initially appointed as Junior Engineers (Civil)
in the Telecommunication Department Civil Division. For promotion to
the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil), a Notification was issued inviting F
the persons who were already in service as Junior Engineer (Civil) in the
Telecommunication Department, Civil Division to appear in the qualifying
examination. Both the appellants appeared in the said examination and
were declared successful. The Superintending Engineer (Civil) sent the
seniority list of Junior Engineer (Civil) of his circle. The names of the G
appellants. had been shown respectively at Serial Nos. 20 and 27 in the
Seniority List. They challenged the said seniority list before the Central
Administrative Tribunal which was repelled. Aggrieved by the judgment of
the Tribunal the appellants preferred the present appeal.

On behalf of the appellants it was contended that the candidates who H
1
2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A had passed the qualifying examination at an earlier point of time should
be treated as senior to those passing at a later point of time; that para 206
P&T Manual Vol. IV was equally applicable to Officers of all branches of
P&T services as a reference to para 1 and chapter 7 of the said Manual
would indicate; and that Recruitment Rules, 1976 were silent as to the
determination of inter-se seniority.
B
On behalf of the respondents it was contended that para 206 P & T
Manual Vol. (V is not at all applicable to the appellants; and that the
general rules "Of length of service in determining the seniority must be made A
applicable.
c Dismissing the appeal, this Court

HELD : 1. There is no express provision in the P&T Civil Engineer-
ing (Civil Gazetted Officers) Recruitment Rules which controls the inter-se
seniority between the candidates passing the departmental examination in
D the same year for being eligible to be promoted to the post of Assistant
Engineer (Civil). Para 206 of P & T Manual, in terms are not applicable
to the cadre of the service to which the appellants belong. The appellants
are governed by different set of rules known as Post and Telegraph Civil
•
Engineering (Civil Gazetted Officers) Recruitment Rules, 1976 and para
E 206 of P & T Manual governs the service of the Assistant Engineers
Wireless. For promotion under the 1976 rules, the Junior Engineers (Civil)
who have qualified in the departmental examination and have not rendered
not less that 8 years of service in the grade will be eligible for promotion.
Such rules for promotion does not contain any provision for determining
inter-se seniority for the purpose of giving promotion earlier or later with
F reference to date of passing the qualifying examination. In the absence of
any specific rule indicating inter-se seniority to be observed with reference
to the date of passing the qualifying examination and promotion to be
given on the basis of such inter-se seniority, general principle of length of
service as a basis for promotion amongst eligible candidates with qualify-
G ing service should be made applicable. Para 1 of P & T Manual Vol. IV
indicates that the general rule will apply equally to Officers of all the
branches of service unless it is otherwise expressly specified to a particular
branch of service. [11-F to H, 12-A-B]

2. The special rules which are applicable to particular branches have
H been laid down in Chapter. 5 to Chapter 8. Since the appellants are
SATPALANTIL v. U.0.1. [G.N.RAY,J.] 3

,!_ governed by the special rules known as Post and Telegraph Civil Engineer- A
ing.(Civil Gazetted Officers) Recruitment Rules, 1976, para 206 of P & T
Manual provides that persons who qualify in the examination in an earlier
year would become senior to those who pass in subsequent year. Para 206
does not provide for any seniority to be given to a candidate passing in the
same year but at different point of lime. Hence, even under para 206 of P
B
& T Manual a candidate though he has passed the qualifying test in the
same year but at a later date availing of a further chance, cannot be
.4', bypassed for promotion by a candidate passing the same qualifying ex-
amination in the same year but at an earlier point of time even though the
former candidate is otherwise senior in the cadre on the basis of length !Jf
service. [U-C to El C
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5383 of
1995.

From the Judgment and Order dated 11.1.93 of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, Jaipur in O.A. No. 1520 of 1989. D
Govind Mukhoty, B.S. Jain and Mrs. V.D. Khanna for the Appellant
in C.A. No. 5383/95.

Randhir Jain and Ms. Binu Tamta for the appellant in C.A. No.
5390/95. E

N.N. Goswami, Hemani Sharma and Ms. Anil Katiyar for the

- Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

G.N. RAY, J. Leave granted.
F

Heard learned counsel for the parties. Both the appeals arise out of
a common judgment dat_ed January 11, 1993 passed by the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench in 0.A.No. 152 of 1989 (Satpal Anti/ v. G
Union of India and another) and in 0.A.No. 98 of 1989 (Jitendra Kumar
l Gupta v. Union of India and others.) Both these appeals involving same
question of law and similar facts have been heard together and are dis-
posed of by this common judgment.

The appellant, Satpal Anti!, was initially appointed as Junior En- H
4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A gineer (Civil) in the Telecommunication Department Civil Division on ·"
January 10, 1987. For promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil),
a Notification was issued inviting the persons who are already in service as
Junior Engineer (Civil) in the Telecommunication Department, Civil
Division to ~ppear in the qualifying examination scheduled to be held on
B 16/17.3.1987. Both the appellants Satpal Anti! and Jitendra Kumar Gupta
appeared in the said examination and were declared successful. It appears
that previously an application was filed before the Tribunal by the appel-
lants inter a/ia contending that even though qualified persons like the
appellants were available, the Department was making ad hoc promotions

c to the post of Assistant Engineer without holding the DPC by the Depart-
ment for regular promotion. It appears that vide its Order dated '.'lovember
4, 1988 in 0.A.No. 359 of 1987 the Central Administrative Tribunal
directed the; respondents to convene the DPC for the purpose of filling up
the vacanci~s in the cadre of Assistant Engineer (Civil) out of the prumo-
D tion quota within a period of four months from the date of the decision
and to give the benefits to the eligible candidates by way of promotion in
accordance with the recommendations of DPC. After the said judgment of
the Tribunal the Department of Telecommunications issued a letter qated
November 21, 1988 duly signed so as to enable the Department to recast
the all India eligibility of Junior Engineers. Pursuant to such letter, the
E Superintendent Engineer (Civil) sent the seniority list of Junior Engineers
(Civil) of his circle vide letter dated January 5, 1989. The names of the

-
appellants Satpal Anti! and Jitendra Kumar Gupta had been shown respec-
tively at Serial Nos. 20 and 27 in the Seniority List. On September 26, 1989,
DPC considered the case of the eligible candidates. The appellants, how-
F ever, contended that the appella11ts having passed qualifying examination
in March, 1987, should be treated as senior to the persons who had passed
the qualifying examination at a later date. The appellants also contended
that promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer should be given in
accordance with the para 206 of the P & T Manual Vol. IV. The appellants
G contended that the eligibility list on all India basis of the persons who were
qualified to be promoted to the post of Engineers should be prepared first
keeping in view the provisions of para 206 of P & T Manual and the
judgments passed by the Calcutta and Madras Benches of Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal should be given effect to in this regard. The appel-
H !ants also contended that they should be given promotion to the post of
SATPALANTIL v. U.O.l. [G.N. RAY,J.] 5

Assistant Engineer (Civil) with effect from the date on which the appellants A
had completed 8 years of qualifying service on the post of Junior Engineer
with all consequential benefits. The respondents, however, contended
before the Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, that the respondents had implemented
the direction of the Jaipur Bench passed in 0.A.No. 359 of 1987 and held
DPC. It was also pointed out by the respondents that the Calcutta Bench B
of the Central Administrative Tribunal in 0.A.No. 599 of 1986 had ob-
served vide its order dated February 6, 1987 that the applicants who had
lost two years in which examination should have been held, should be given
another chance to appear in the examination to be held within a period of
six months after the publication of the result of the March, 1987 examina- C
tion, if any of such applicant had failed in the examination in March, 1987.
The Calcutta Bench further. directed that even though the candidate who
failed in two examinations should be allowed to appear in the qualifying
examination for tbe third time but in that case, the seniority of the ap-
plicants who would pass in the third chance, would not be protected and D
their regularisation to the post of Assistant Engineer would be from the
date of passing the examination.

The appellants before the Calcutta Bench had been officiating as
Assistant Engineers and they had been asked to appear in the departmen-
tal examination for regularisation of their service and the question of inter E
se seniority was not involved in the proceeding before the Calcutta Bench
of Central Administrative Tribunal. The respondents also contended that
provisions of para 206 of P & T Manual Vol. IV are applicable to the cadre
of Telegraph, Engineering and Wireless Service Class I and the said
provisions are not applicable to the applicants who do not belong to such F
service. It was also contended by the respondents that even otherwise,
under the said para 206, the candidates passing the qualifying examination
in a year irrespective of chances in a year would be senior to those passing
in subsequent years. The respondents contended that the appellants were
not entitled to claim seniority with reference to the date of passing the
examination and accordingly not entitled to claim seniority over the can- G
- ' didates who had also passed the examination in the same year though in
the second and third chances. The Tribunal, Jaipur Bench in disposing of
the said 0.A.No. 152 of 1989, 0.A.No. 98 of 1989 inter alia came to the
finding that from the plain reading of para 206 of P & T Manual Vol. IV
it was quite clear that the said Rule was applicable to the cadre of H
6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
}

A Telegraph Engineering and Wireless Service only. The Tribunal pointed
out that the heading in para 206 'Deputy Assistant Engineers Wireless'
points out the applicability of the said para to the wireless service. The
Tribunal also noted that the learned counsel for the appellants also con-
ceded before the Tribunal that the said para 206 was applicable for the

B
cadre of Telegraph Engineering and Wireless Service. The Tribunal further
noted that even under para 206, the officials who passed the examination
held in 1956 would come en-block senior to these who passed in 1957. The
said para 206, therefore, only provided that the persons who qualified in
the examination held in the earlier year would become senior to those who
.
passed in the subsequent year. The Tribunal also noted that the decision
c of the Allahabad High Court in P.N.Lal's case was not produced. The
Tribunal further indicated that so far as the judgment of the Calcutta
Bench was concerned, the question involved in the proceedings was that
of regularisation of Junior Engineer officiating as Assistant Engineer and

D
the said decision did not support the contention of the applicants.
...
The appellants relied on the decision of the Madras Bench of Central
Administrative Tribunal passed in 0.A.No.5 of 1987 passed on June 15,
1987 (S. Anantharaman and Others v. Union of India and Others,) before
the Jaipur Bench. The Tribunal indicated that a bare perusal of the said
judgment would show that the case for consideration in that case was
E regularisation of Junior Engineers (Civil) who had been working as Assis-
tant Engil)eer (Civil) on ad hoc basis. The Madras Bench decided that the
applicants had to appear in the departmental qualifying examination as a
condition precedent for regularisation, and the applicants were entitled to
get, in addition to the chance to appear in the examination in March, 1987,
two more consecutive chances to appear in the qualifying examination.
-
F
In the impugned judgment of the Jaipur Bench of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, it has been indicated that although Madras Bench
had directed that if any of the applicant had qualified in the first attempt
in the departmental examination held in 1987, such candidates would be
G regularised with effect from the date of their completion of 8 years of
service as Junior Engineer and this facility would not be available to the
applicantsjf they would pass the examination to be held in future. The said
-
decision of the Madras Bench had no application in the facts and conten-
tions raised in the petitions filed by the appellants because the appellants
H had not been officiating on ad hoc basis as Assistant Engineer (Civil). The
SATPALANTIL v. U.0.l.[G.N.RAY,J.] 7

Jaipur Bench also held in disposing of the said applications of the appel- A
!ants that there was no force in the contentions of the appellants that they
should be considered as senior to the Junior Engineers who had also
qualified in the subsequent qualifying examination although held in the
same year. The Tribunal further held that the respondents were justified
in preparing a combined list from out of those who had passed the
B
qualifying examination held in 1987 and preparation of such combined list
....• had not violated any rule. The Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, therefore, dismissed
the said application made by the appellants.

Mr. Mukhoty, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants,
had contended that the candidates who had become eligible for promotion C
earlier by passing the qualifying examination at an earlier point of time,
would rank en-block senior and would be entitled to be promoted earlier
than the candidates who became eligible for promotion on subsequeht

... occasions. Mr. Mukhoty has contended that para 206 of P & T Manual
Vol. IV and the decision of the Madras Bench of the Central Administra- D
tive Tribunal in O.A.No. 5 of 1987 decided on June 15, 1987 clearly support
the contentions of the appellants and the learned Tribunal, Jaipur Bench
had misappreciated the case of the appellants and has wrongly decided
their case. Mr. Mukhoty has contended that in Writ Petition No. 2739 of
1981 filed by Shri Parmanand Lal and Shri Brij Mohan, Junior Engineers
Telephones of P & T Department, the decision rendered by the Allahabad E
High Court also supports the contention of the appellants. Such decision
of the Allahabad High Court was challenged before this Court and the said
decision of the Allahabad High Court has been upheld by the Supreme
Court. It, therefore, cannot be contended that para 206 P & T Manual
would not be applicable and it is not correct to contend that even though F
the subsequent examinations are held in the same year, candidates passing
the said examination at any time in the year will not be affected by any
other candidate passing the said examination earlier though held in the
same year. Mr. Mukhoty has contended that para 206 P & T Manual
Vol.IV is applicable to the appellants because the appellants are Junior G
Engineers (Civil) in the Engineering Branch of P & T Department. P & T
Manual Vol. IV is equally applicable to officers of all the branches of P
& T services. He has submitted that if a reference is made to para 1 and
Chapter 7 of the said Manual, it will be quite evident that the manual was
applicable to all branches of Post and Telegraph Services. Mr. Mukhoty
has contended that although there are three sections, para 206 under H
8 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A Chapter 7 is applicable to all the engineering branches equally. Mr.
Mukhoty has also contended that the Recruitment Rules, 1976 for Civil
Engineers (Gazetted Officers) are silent as to how the inter se seniority
of qualified candidates could be prepared for the purpose of promotions.
In the case of Junior Engineers (Telephones) the Recruitment Rules, 1976
and the modified rules 1981 are also silent as to how the fixation of
B
seniority for the purpose of promotions should be made after passing the
qualifying examination. In these circumstances, Shri. P.N. Lal approached
the Allahabad High Court by filing Writ Petition and the Allahabad High
Court held that question of seniority to be determined according to the
provisions of P & T Manual Vol. IV para 206 (2). Mr. Mukhoty has
c contended that the Recruitment Rules of 1976 are also silent about the
maintenance of inter se seniority applicable to the cases of the appellants
and the appellants are entitled to claim inter se seniority according to the
provisions of para 206 of P & T Manual Vol. IV. Mr. Mukhoty has
contended that in the Notification inviting applications for appearing in the
D examination it was indicated that 'after passing the examination the Junior
Engineers wqo had completed 8 years of service will be promoted on
regular basis to the Grade of Assistant Engineer (Civil). Although the
appellants passed the said examination at earlier point of time, the Junior
Engineers who were unsuccessful in the first chance but had passed
such examination in third or fourth chance were preferred and given
E promotion simply on the basis of their length of service. Mr. Mukhoty has
contended that such course is not only contrary to para 206 P & T Manual
but also contrary to equity and justice because person qualifying in the first
chance of the examination is deprived of the fruit of his success and
candidate failing in the first chance but qualifying in the second or third
F attempt is gi~en premium over the successful candidate in the very first
chance. Mr. Mukhoty has, therefore, contended that the decision of
the Jaipur Bench has occasioned a grave failure of justice and the same
should be set aside and the appeal should be allowed by directing the
authorities to decide the question of promotion of the Engineers on the
basis of their becoming eligible at earlier point of time by passing the
G examination and consequently being entitled to be considered for promo-
tion before the other candidates passing the said examination at a later
point of time.

Mr. Goswami, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents,
H has, however, contended that para 206 P & T Manual Vol.IV is not at all
SATPALANTIL v. U.O.l. [G.N.RAY,J.] 9

applicable to the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the A
appellants before the Tribunal, Jaipur Bench fairly conceded that the said
provisions were not applicable to the persons belonging to the P & T
Engineering Division. Mr. Goswami has contended that such concession
was not given on a wrong understanding of the position in law. He has
contended that para 1 of the said Manual reads as follows:-
B
-.
"the following general rules apply equally to officers of all the
different branches of the service unless it is otherwise expressly
specified as applicable to a particular class of Government ser-
vants. The Special rules which are applicable to particular
branches are laid down in Chapter V to XVIII." C

Mr. Goswami has contended that admittedly the appellants are
governed by different set of rules known as Post and Telegraph Civil
Engineering (Civil Gazetted Officers) Recruitment Rules 1976 which ap-
pear at pages 33 to 41 of the Paper Book of the Appeal preferred by Shri
Satpal Anti!. Para 205 of P & T Manual which governs Assistant Engineers D
of Telecommunication Branch has no applicability so far as the appellants
are concerned. Mr. goswami has contended that a strong reliance has been
placed by the appellants on the decision of the Calcutta and Madras
Benches of Central Administrative Tribunal. Mr. Goswami has contended
that the Madras Bench in its decision referred to the decision of the E
Calcutta Bench and relied on the decision of the Calcutta Bench to the
following effect :-

"(1) the applicants will have to appear in the departmental qualify-
ing examination for regularisation in the post of Assistant En-
gmeers. F

(ii) the applicants are at liberty to appear in the examination to be
held on March 16/17.3.1987. If the applicants pass in the said
examination proposed to be held on 16/17.3.87, they will be
deemed to have been regularised as Assistant Engineers with effect G
from the respective dates of their completion of 8 years of service
as Junior Engineer.

(iii) if they fail in the examination to be held in March, 1987, the
applicants therein will be given one more chance to appear in the
departmental qualifying examination to be held within a period of H
10 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A six months, after the publication of the results of the examination
held in March, 1987.

(iv) in consideration of the fact that the applicants had already
worked for 8 years as Assistant Engineers they should be allowed
to appear in the departmental qualifying examination for the third
B time also in case they fail in the two consecutive chances. But in
such a case, the seniority of the applicants who pass in the third
chance will not be protected and their regularisation in the post
of Assistant Engineers will be with effect from the date of passing
their examination.
c (v) none of the applicants will be reverted before he is given three
chances to appear in the departmental qualifying examination, as
aforesaid."

Mr. Goswami has contended that it is apparent from the findings of
D the Calcutta Bench that some of the Assistant Engineers had continued on
ad hoc basis for about 7 years. In such situation, the Calcutta Bench
directed that they should be allowed three more chances for appearing in
the qualifying test. It was, however, held that in case the Junior Engineers
would pass the qualifying test in first two chances their seniority would be
E preserved and they should be regularised from the date of qualifying
service as Junior Engineers. Mr. Goswami has contended that since con-
cession was given before the Calcutta Bench to allow some of the Junior
Engineers to pass in three chances, it was held that in case the candidate
would pass a test in the third chance then his seniority would not be
preserved. Such finding of the Calcutta Bench does not indicate that para
F 206 of P & T Manual Vol. IV was made applicable. Mr. Goswami has
contended that even if it is assumed that para 206 P & T Manual was made
applicable such decision cannot be held to be proper and the decision
correctly rendered by the Jaipur Bench since impugned in these appeals
should not be interfered with. Mr. Goswami has also contended that the
G Rule regarding promotion in the 1976 rules is as under :-

"Promotion: Junior Engineers (Civil) who have qualified in the
departmental examination and have rendered not less than 8 years
of service in the grade after appointment thereto on regular basis."

H There is no provision in the said rules regarding determination of
SATPALANTIL v. U.0.1. [G.N.RAY,J.] 11

inter se seniority. Accordingly, the general rules of length of service in A
determining the seniority must be made applicable. Mr. Goswami has
contended that it is well settled that on the face of specific rule governing
a particular service, reliance to any other rule should not be made. Admit-
tedly, the rules governing the appellants are 1976 rules and the provisions
of para 206 P & T Manual Vol. IV which governs the Deputy Assistant
B
Engineers Wireless do not apply to the cases of the appellants. Mr.
Goswami has also contended that the decision of the Allahabad High
Court in Parmanand Lal v. Union of India since relied on by the learned
counsel for the appellants is also not applicable in the facts and circumstan-
ces of the present appeals. The service of the Parmanand Lal was governed
either by the said rules of 1976 or by service rules of 1981 which will be c
quite evident from the decision of the Allahabad High Court. Mr. Goswami
has submitted that in 1992, the 1976 rules have been amended --. and as per
.,,,. the amended recruitment rules, the condition of passing the departmental
examination to the post of Assistant Engineer for promotion has been

-~ " I deleted. Hence, for promotion from the promotion quota of 50%, the only D
condition prescribed now is that a Junior Engineer should complete 8 years
of service in the grade. He has, therefore, submitted that no interference
is called for against the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Jaipur Bench and the appeals should be dismissed.
J
After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the E

~I {
submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it
appears to us that there is no express provision in 1976 rules which controls
the inter se seniority between the candidates passing the departmental
examination in the same year for being eligible to be promoted to the post
of Assistant Engineer {Civil). It also appears to us that para 206 of P & T F
J Manual, in terms are not applicable to the cadre of the service to which
the appellants belong. The appellants are governed by different set of rules
~'
known as Post and Telegraph Civil Engineering (Civil Gazetted Officers)
Recruitment Rules, 1976 and para 206 of P & T Manual governs the service
of the Assistant Engineers Wireless. For promotion under the 1976 rules, G
the Junior Engineers (Civil) who have qualified in the departmental ex-
amination and have not rendered not less than 8 years of service in the
grade will be eligible for promoti0n. Such rules for promotion does not
contain any provision for determining inter se seniority for the purpose of
giving promotion earlier or later with reference to date of passing the
qualifying examination. In our view, Mr. Goswami is justified in his con- H
12 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. -.
A tention that in the absence of any specific rule indicating inter se seniority
to be observed with reference to the date of passing the qualifying examina-
tion and promotion to be given on the basis of such inter se seniority,
general principle of length of service as a basis for promotion amongst
eligible candidates with qualifying service should be made applicable. Para
1 of P & T Manual Vol. IV indicates that the general rules will apply
B equally to Officers of all the branches of service unless it is otherwise
expressly specified to a particular branch of service. The special rules
which are applicable to particular branches have been laid down in Chap-
ter 5 to Chapter 8. Since the appellants are governed by the special rules
known as Post and Telegraph Civil Engineer (Civil Gazetted Officers)
c Recruitment Rules, 1976, para 206 of P & T Manual is not applicable to
the appellants. That apart, Para 206 of P & T Manual provides that persons
who qualify in the examination in an earlier year would become senior to
those who pass in subsequent year. Para 206 does not provide for any
seniority to be given to a candidate passing in the same year but at different
D point of time. Hence, even under para 206 of P & T Manual a candidate
though he has passed the qualifying test in the same year but at a later date
availing of a further chance, cannot be bypassed for promotion by a
candidate passing the same qualifying examination in the same year but at
an earlier point of time even though the former candidate is otherwise
senior in the cadre on the basis of length of service. We, therefore, find no
E merit in these appeals and the appeals are, therefore, dismissed without
any order as to costs.

V.S.S. Appeal dismissed.

(·

.
.,