Supreme Court of India

SAWAN RAM MALRAversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: 1995 INSC 571
Decided: 13 September 1995
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Bench: S C AGRAWALS P BHARUCHA

Holding

The appellant is entitled to be considered for promotion to the 6% posts, as the 1987 Recruitment Rules do not exclude Railway Mail Service officials and the 1987 clarifications cannot override those rules.

Summary

The appellant, a Head Sorting Assistant in the Railway Mail Service, applied for the Departmental Competitive Examination for the 6% quota of Postal Superintendent/Postmasters Group B posts reserved for General Line Officials. Although his name appeared in the list of selected candidates, he was excluded from the final merit list on the ground that Railway Mail Service officials were ineligible. The Central Administrative Tribunal upheld the department's clarification that only post‑office officials could compete, but the Supreme Court held that the 1987 Recruitment Rules, which govern the combined cadre, do not limit the definition of "General Line Officials" and therefore include Railway Mail Service personnel. The Court ruled that the earlier clarifications issued under the 1986 Rules cannot override the 1987 Rules. Consequently, the appellant is entitled to be considered for promotion under the 6% quota and to receive the consequential benefits.

Issues considered

Whether General Line Officials serving in the Railway Mail Service are eligible for promotion to the 6% quota of Postal Superintendent/Postmasters Group B posts under the 1987 Recruitment Rules.
Whether the departmental clarifications issued in 1987, pertaining to the 1986 Rules, can be treated as supplemental to the 1987 Rules and thus exclude Railway Mail Service officials.

Subjects

promotiondepartmental competitive examinationgeneral line officialsrailway mail serviceeligibilityrecruitment rulescivil serviceadministrative law

Judgment

A SAWAN RAM MALRA
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

SEPTEMBER 13, 1995

B [S.C. AGRAWAL AND S.P. BHARUCHA, JJ.]

Se1vice Law : Department of Posts, Postal Supelintendent/Postmasters
Group B (Recrnitment) Rules, 1987:

C Department of Posts-Postal Supe1intendent/Postmasters Group B -
94% posts to be filled up from amongst lnspect01; Post Offices and Inspector
Railway Mails-6% to be filled up by means of competitive examination from
amongst general Line Officials belonging to Higher Selection Grade I, Higher
Selection Grade-II and Lower Selection Grade-II-General Line Official
belonging to Selection Service, fulfilling eligibility conditions-Held, entitled
D to appear in Depa1tment competitive examination and on basis of their
pe1f01mance in such examination are entitled to be considered for promotion
against 6% posts rese1ved for General Line Officials.

In the Department of Posts, prior to 1987, there were two cadres,
namely Postal Superintendent Service Group B and Pc.,stmasters Service
E Group B, Governed by Postal Superintendent Service Group B Posts
(Recruitment) Rules 1979 and Postmasters Service Group B (Recruit-
ment) Rules, 1986, respectively. With the enactment of Department of
Posts, Postal Superintendent/Postmasters Group B Recruitment Rules,
1987, the 1979. Rules and the 1986 rules were superseded and the two
F cadres were merged into the cadre of Postal Superintendent/Postmasters
Group B Under the 1987 Rules promotion to 94% of posts of Postal
Superintendent/Postmasters Group B were made from Inspector, Post
Offices and Inspector Railway Mails and to the remaining 6% posts,
promotions were made by means of competitive examination from amongst
G general line officials, belonging to Higher Selection Grade I , Higher
Selection Grade II and Lower Selection Grade II.

In response to the Circular dated 12.8.1988, the appellant, who was
employed as Head Sorting Assistant in Higher Selection Grade-II in the
Railway Mail Service, applied for the appeared in the Departmental Com-
H petitive examination for 6% posts of Postal Superintendent/Postmasters
608
S.R. MALRA v. U.0.1. 609

Service Group B, reserved for General Line Ollicials. By letter dated A
14.10.1990 the result was announted and appellant's name was shown in
the list of selected candidates, at serial no. 9. However, his name did not
find place in the final 'merit list' containing names of 10 ollicers. He was
informed that he being a general line ollicial in Railway Mail Service, was
not eligible for promotion against 6% posts. The appellant moved the
B
Central Administrative Tribunal, which rejected his claim on the ground
that in view of the clarifications issued by the Department by means of
letters dated 30.1.1987, 9.3.1987 and 24.4.1987 only general line officials
working in the post offices were eligible to participate in the Departmental
Competitive examination for promotion to 6% Group 'B' Posts and the
General Line Officials working in RCO/RMC/SPCO/PSD and foreign c
posts were not eligible. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the appeal by special
leave.

Allowing the appeal, the is Court
D
HELD : 1.1. The appellant was entitled to be considered for promo-
tion against the 6% posts reserved for General Line Officials, on the basis
of his performance in the Departmental competitive examination held in
October 1988 in which he was allowed to appear. The fact that appellant's
name was added in the list of selected candidates at Serial No. 9 indicates
that on the basis of his performance in the Departmental competitive E
examination he 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 along with others who were
selected on the basis of the said examination. [614-B-C]
F
1.2. The Department of Posts, Postal, Superintendent/Postmasters
Group B(Recruitment) Rules, 1987 govern recruitment to the combined
cadre of Postal Superintendent Service Group 'B' and Postmasters Service
Group 'B' while the Postmasters Group 'B' Service (Recruitment) Rules,
1986, only governed the cadre of Postmasters Service Group 'B'. In the G
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 promo- H
610 . SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A tion 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. (617-D-F]

1.3. The clarifications contained in the letters dl,lted January 30,
B 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
c by means of the Departmental competitive examination. (613-H, 614-A]

1.4. The respondents shall consider the case of the appellant for
promotion to the Postal Superintendent Service Group 'B'/Postmasters Ser-
vice Group 'B' against 6% posts reserved from amongst General Line Offi-
cials on the basis of the result of the Departmental competitive examination
D 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 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
benefit accruing to him as a result of such promotion. (614-D-F]
E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8235 of
1995.

From the Judgment and Order dated 19.1.94 of the Central Ad-
F ministrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench at Chandigarh in O.A. No. 407-PB
of 1989.

P .D. Sharma for the Appellant

Ms. K. Amreshwari, Wasim A Quadri and Mrs. Anil Katiyar for the
G Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S.C. AGRAWAL, J. Leave granted.

H The short question' which arises for consideration in this appeal is
S.R. MALRA v. U.0.1. [S.C. AG RAWAL, J.] 611

whether the appellant is eligible for promotion to Postal Superinten- A
dents/Postmasters Group 'B' posts under the six per cent quota reserved
for promotion of General Line Officials by means of Departmental com-
petitive examination as per the Department of Posts, Postal Superinten-
dent/Postmasters Group 'B' Recruitment Rules, 1987 [hereinafter referred
to as 'the 1987 Rules']. Prior to the making of the 1987 Rules there were
B
two services in the Department of Posts, viz., the Postal Superintendent
Service Group 'B' and the Postmasters Service Group 'B' Recruitment to
the Postal Superintendent 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 c
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 Superin-
tendents/Postmasters Service Group 'B' was created and recruitment to the
said common cadre is governed by the 1987 Rules. Appointment to the D
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, E
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
F
(ii) with 8 years regular service in the scale of Rs. 1400-2300 or
above or equivalent.

(2) 6% from amongst General Line of officials by means of a
Departmental competitive examination amongst officers belonging G
to Higher Selection Grade-I (scale ofpay Rs. 2000- 3200), Higher
Sele,ction Grade-II (scale of pay Rs. 1640-2900) and Lower Selec-
tion Grade (Scale of pay Rs. 1400-2300) with 5 years' regular
servic6 in either or all the 3 cadres together."

At the relevant time, the appellant was employed as Head sorting H
612 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A 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 sub-
B mitted 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 same
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 induded
c
• 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
D 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'
E posts and that General Line Officials working in RLO/RAM/SPCO/PSD
and foreign posts were not eligible. The Tribunal has held that the appel-
lant was admitted to the examination by mistake overlooking those instruc-
tions. Feeling aggrieved °!JY the said judgment of the Tribunal, the appellant
has filed this appeal.
F
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
G 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
H 'B':
S.R.MALRA v. U.0.I.[S.C.AGRAWAL,J.] 613

"Promotion A

(i) 25% posts from General Line officials by means of departmen-
tal 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 of both the grades
and officials belonging to lower selection grade (Rs. 425-640) with
B
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 c
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 two two sets D
of provisions. The 1987 Rules govern recruitment to the combine cadre of
Postal Superintendent Service Group 'B' and Postmasters Service Group
'B' while the 1986 Rules only governed the cadre of Postmaster 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 "In-
spector, Railway Mails" in the matter of promotion to the 94% posts., RMS E
has officials falling 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 F
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 G
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 H
614 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A 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 Department<1~ ..:om-
B petitive 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 c9mpetitive examination held in October
c 1988 the appellant was selected and but for his being treated as ineligible
for promotion against the 6% posts by means of the Departmental com-
petitive examination, he woi!-ld-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 and the respondents
D are directed to consider the case of the appellant for promotion to the
Postal Superintendent Service Group 'B'/Postmasters Service Group 'B'
against 6% posts reserved from amongst General Line Officials on the
basis of the result of the Departmental compe~itive examination conducted
in October 1988 in pursuance of the circular dated March 11, 1988. If the
E appellant is found entitled to such promotion on the basis of his perfor-
mance 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.
F
The appeal is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.

R.P. Appeal allowed.

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "promotion"Sign in to search