Holding

The 1966 Telegraph Engineering Service Class‑II Recruitment Rules, as amended, supersede paragraph 206 of the Post & Telegraph Manual and require the eligibility list for promotion to be prepared on the basis of the year of recruitment, with separate lists for each recruitment year and seniority‑cum‑fitness as the selection criterion.

Summary

The Madras Telephone SC/ST Social Welfare Association sought a direction that the eligibility list for promotion from Junior Engineer to Assistant Engineer be based on the year of confirmation, but the Central Administrative Tribunal had ordered the list to be based on the year of passing the qualifying examination. The Union of India appealed, arguing that the 1966 Telegraph Engineering Service Class‑II Recruitment Rules, which came into force under Article 309 of the Constitution, prescribe that seniority be determined by the year of recruitment and that separate lists must be prepared for each recruitment year. The Supreme Court held that once the statutory recruitment rules and the 1966 Government instruction dated 28 June 1966 were in force, the earlier executive instruction in paragraph 206 of the Post & Telegraph Manual was displaced. Accordingly, the eligibility list must be prepared on the basis of the year of recruitment, applying the seniority‑cum‑fitness criteria, and the promotions already effected under the Allahabad High Court judgment would not be disturbed. The Court also dismissed the contempt petition against the Department for non‑implementation, noting bona‑fide difficulties, and directed that promotions be effected within six months. All appeals and applications were disposed of.

Issues considered

The proper basis for preparing the eligibility list for promotion from Junior Engineer to Assistant Engineer under the 1966 recruitment rules.
Whether paragraph 206 of the Post & Telegraph Manual continues to have force after the enactment of the 1966 recruitment rules.
The effect of earlier judgments (e.g., Union of India v. P.N. Lal) on the present dispute.
Whether contempt proceedings should be maintained against departmental authorities for non‑implementation of the Supreme Court’s directions.

Legislation cited

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985s. Section 29
Constitution of Indias. Article 136, s. Article 309

Subjects

PromotionEligibility listSeniority‑cum‑fitnessRecruitment Rules 1966Telegraph Engineering ServiceAdministrative lawContempt of courtCentral Administrative Tribunal

Judgment

A UNION OF INDIA
v.
~--
MADRAS TELEPHONE S.C. AND S.T., SOCIAL WELFARE
ASSOCIATION, ETC.

APRIL 26, 2000
B
[G.B. PATTANAIK, R.P. SETHI AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.]

Telegraph Engineering Sen1ice Class II Recruitment Rules, 1966: Rules
2( e) and 5-Schedule-Appendix I and JI.
c Post and Telegraph Manual: Volume IV-Paragraph 206.

Service Law :

Telecommunication circles-Pmmotion to the post ofAssistant Engineer
D from the post of Junior Engineer-Pmcedure for pmmotion-Held procedure
is that prescribed under 1966 Rules and not para 206 of the P & T Manual-
Held separate eligibility list should be prepared for each year of recruitment.

Contempt--Supreme Cowt decision-Non-implementation by Depart-
mental Authorities-Gmund-Bona-fide belief that there were two conflicting
E judgments-Clarification by Supreme Cowt-Held in the circumstances con-
tempt proceedings should be dropped.

Administrative Law: /
Statutory Rules-Executive instructions-Conflict between-Applicabil-
F ity of rules or instructions.

Constitution of India, 1950 :

A1ticle 136-Appea,l-Hearing-Closure of arguments-Subsequently In-
tervention Application made for oppo1tunity of being heard-Rejection of
G
The Madras Telephone SC/ST Social Welfare Association filed a
petition for directions that the eligibility list of Officers for promotion to 1- "'
Engineering service be prepared by determining the seniority on the basis
of confirmation as .Junior Engineer and that list should form the basis for
H promotion to Class-II Service. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that
618
U.O.I. \(MADRAS TELEPHONE S.C. AND S.T. ASSN. 619
the year of recruitment for the purpose of seniority is extraneous and A
irrelevant and it accordingly directed that the eligibility list be arranged
according to the year of passing the qualifying examination and amongst
those, who pass the examination in the same year, the list should be accord-
ing to their merit, as seen from the marks obtained in the examination.
Union of India challenged the said judgment before this Court. By its
B
judgment dated 13.2.1997 in Union of India v. Madras Telephone SC/ST
Social Welfare Association, (C.A. No. 4339 of 1995), this Court came to the
conclusion that the eligibility list has to be prepared according to the year
of recruitment. This Court did not accept the stand of the Association that
the list should be prepared with reference to the year of confirmation.
c
In the connected case (SLP (C) No. 3384-86 of 1986) the Allahabad
High Court considered the grievance', of the petitioners on the basis of
instructions contained in paragraph 206 of the P & T Manual and the
provisions of the recruitment rules did not come up for consideration. The
High Court ultimately directed that the petitioners before it should be
D
promoted w.e.f. the date prior to a date of promotion of any person, who
passed the department examination subsequent to them and adjust their
seniority accordingly. Against the said judgment of Allahabad High Court,
the Union of India preferred Special Leave Petition. By its order dated
8.4.86 this Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition in Union of India v.
P.N. Lal. E
Union of India has filed an application seeking clarifications on the
ground that the judgment of this Court in the case of Union of India v. P.N.
Lal runs contrary to the judgment of this Court in Union of india v. Madras
Telephone SC/ST Social Welfare Association.
F
The Madras Telephone SC/ST Social Welfare Association has filed a
contempt petition before this Court contending that the directions given by
this Court in Union of India v. Madras Telephone SC/ST Social Welfare
Association had not been implemented.

The other connected appeal (Nos. 6485-86 of 1998) is directed against G
the order of Central Administrative Tribunal. The appellant had chal-
lenged before the Tribunal his order of reversion dated 4.2.1993. The basis
of the said reversion was refixation of the seniority in the rank of Assistant
Engineer, because of some judgments of different Tribunals and because of
some judgments of this Court. H
620 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 3 S.C.R.
A The question in these appeals and applications is as to how the
selection list has to be drawn up for the purpose of promotion to the post of
Assistant Engineer from the post of Junior Engineer in the Tele-Communi-
cation Circles.

Disposing of the appeals and applications, the Court
B
HELD : 1. Before the Telegraph Engineering Service Class-IT Re-
cruitment Rules, 1966 framed in exercise of powers conferred by the
proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India came into force, promo-
tion from the post of erstwhile Engineering Supervisor Telecom (re-desig-
c nated as Junior Engineer) to the post of Assistant Engineer was being made
in accordance with the instructions contained in paragraph 206 of the post
and Telegraph Manual Volume IV. The said instructions were obviously the
executive instructions, which governed the field in the absence of statutory
rules. The recruitment rules came into force w.e.f. 15th of June, 1966, on
being notified. Once the statutory recruitment rules have come into force
D
and procedure has also been prescribed under the said rules for prepara-
tion of the eligibility list of officers for promotion to the Engineering Service
Class Il by notification dated 28th of June, 1966, it is that procedure which
has to be adopted and the earlier administrative instruction contained in
paragraph 206. of the P & T Manual cannot be adhered to. Under the
E 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
F 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. Once, separate lists are prepared
G by the Departmental Promotion Committee of the officers recruited in
different recruitment years in the feeder category and the criteria for f- '<-
promotion being seniority-cum-fitness, then it would create no problem in
promoting theofficers concerned. As to the inter se position of the officials
belonging to the same year of recruitment in the feeder category, the
H procedure to be adopted has been indicated in paragraph (iii) of the
U.O.I. v. MADRAS TELEPHONE S.C. AND S.T. ASSN. 621
Memorandum dated 28th of June 1966. (625-C-D; 630-A-F] A

2. The Allahabad High Court coru;idered the grievances of the appel-
lant on the basis of instructions contained in paragraph 206 of the P & T
Manual and the provisioru; of the Recruitment Rules did not come up for
consideration. When this Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed
by the Union of India, though it was stated that the special leave petition
B
was 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 Allahabad 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 c
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
Union of India v. Madras Telephone SC/ST Social Welfare Association runs
contrary to the judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which stood D
affirmed by dismissal of the special leave petition in Union of India v.
P.N. Lal. [628-F-H; 629-A-B]

3. The judgment of this Court in Union of India v. Madras TelephonP
ST/SC Social Welfare Association has rightly interpreted the relevant provi-
sions of the recruitment rules read with the procedure prescribed under E
the Memorandum dated 28th of June, 1966. However, the persons who
have already got the benefit by virtue of the judgments in their favour, will
not suffer and their promotion already made will not be affected by this
judgment. [630-F-GJ
F
4. The Departmental Authorities had not implemented the decisions
of this court for which a Contempt Petition had been filed. Having regard
to the circumstances under which the Departmental Authorities enter-
tained bona fide difficulties, it would not be proper to proceed against the
authorities under the contempt and the contempt proceedings accordingly
are dropped. However, the Departmental Authorities are directed G
to proceed in accordance with law and in accordance with this
judgment. [630-H; 631-A-B]

Union of India v. Madras Telephone SC/ST Social Welfare Association,
decided by Supreme Court on 13.2.1997, reiterated. H
622 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000) 3 S.C.R.
A Union of India v. P.N. La4 decided by Supreme Court on 8.4.1996,
distinguished.

5. In the connected appeals the impugned order passed by the Cen-
tral AdmirJstrative Tribunal is erroneous. The judgment of the Allahabad
High Court in favour of the appellant having attained finality, he having
B 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 Tribunals or by this Court. The order of reversion is :!I(.....
untenable and unjustified on the grounds on which the said reversion has
been passed, and as such cannot be sustained in law. [631-F-H]
c CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4339 of 1995
Etc.

From the Judgment and Order dated 31.12.86 of the Central Admin-
istrative Tribunal, Madras in T.A. No. 909/86 and R.A. No. 44 of 1987.

D Mukul Rohtagi, R.N. Trivedi, Additional Solicitor G~erals, Shanti
Bhushan, E.X. Joseph, A.D.N. Rao, P. Parmeshwaran, R.K. Kapoor, P. Venna,
S.K. Srivastava, Sumit Kumar, Anis Ahmad Khan, Naresh Kauslllk, Narender
K. Roy, Ms. Shilpa Chaban, L. Kaushik, A.N. Dass, M.M. Kashyap, Ms.
Neeru Vaid, Arvind Kumar Sharma, S. Uday Kumar Sagar, S.S. Sabharwal
E and Lakshmi Narasimha for the appearing parties.
.,__ /

Permanand Lal-in-person for the Petitioner in Contempt Petition. No.
121/99.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

F PATTANAIK, J. l.A.2/99.

This is an application by Union of India, seeking clarifications, being
of the opinion t11at the Judgment of this Court in the case of Union of India
v. P.N.Lal and Ors., in S.L.P. Nos. 3384-86/86 runs contraiy to the Judgment
of this Court dated 13.2.97 in the case of Union of India v. Madras Telephone
G SC/ST Social Welfare Association in C.A. No. 4339 of 1995. By this appli-
cation, the department also seeks further directions as to the mat1Iler in which
judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad dated 5.1.96 as
well as the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated 28.10.97,
passed in Writ Petition No. 23522/97 would be implemented, since according
H to the department, the directions contained therein run contrary to the
U.O.I. v. MADRAS TELEPHONE S.C. AND S.T. ASSN. [PATTANAIK, J.] 623
principle enunciated in the judgment of this Court in P.N. Lal's case. The A
Union of India has filed an application for condonation of delay in filing
application for directions, which has been numbered as I.A. No, 3199.

- 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 regis- B
tered as Contempt Petition(Civil) No. 12111999. 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 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 C
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
order that the matters be placed before a Bench of three Hon'ble Judges and D
that is how this group of matters have been placed before us.
I.A. No. I 012000.
In I.A. No.2/99, filed by the Union of India for clarifications and
directions, as already stated, an application for intervention had been filed by E
four persons, claiming themselves to be vitally affected, if the judgment of
this Court in C.A.No. 4339/95 is not implemented and the said Intervention
Application has been numbered as I.A. No. JO of 2000.
I.A. No. 9199.
F
One Shri Pannanand Lal, who has been permitted to intervene in
Contempt Petition No. 121199, has filed an application, seeking permission
to file additional documents and said application has been numbered as I.A.
No.911999.
I.A. No. 1112000. G
An application has been filed by the Union of India for impleading
P.N.Lal, Brij Mohan, who were the respondents in SLP Nos. 9063-64/92,
19716-22/91, 16698/92 and 5398/96 as well as several other persons to be
impleaded as parties, which has been registered as I.A.No. 11/2000. This
application has been filed because of the observations made by this Court, H
624 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000) 3 S.C.R.
A while hearing this matter on 20th of January, 2000, wherein the Court had
observed that the consequence of divergent views has put the Union of India
in quandary and it is, therefore, necessary to consider and decide which of
the two divergent views is the correct one. The Court also further observed
that all parties whose interest would be affected, are before the Court, but
we direct the Union of India specifically, to implead Parmanand Lal in its
B
interim application (I.A. 2199.)

I.A. No 1212000

Parmanand Lal, himself also had filed an application for intervention
and directions, who is the beneficiary of the order of this Court dated 8.4.86,
c when the Special Leave Petition Nos. 3384-86 of 1986 filed by the Union
of India was dismissed, necessarily, thereby upholding the order of Allahabad
High Court passed in Writ Petition No. 2739of1981, filed by said Parmanand.
Lal. The said I.A. has been registered as I.A. No. 1212000.

D C.A. Nos. 6485-86 of 1998 is by Parmanand Lal, directed against the
order of Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, passed
in R.A. No. 170/97 on 18.9.97, as well as the Order of the said Tribunal in
O.A. No. 2646of1993 dated 11.4.97. In the aforesaid Civil Appeal Nos.6485-
86 of 1998, said Parmanand Lal, filed an application for interim relief, which
has been registered as I.A. Nos. 4 and 5 of 1999.
E
I.A. No. 3/99, filed by the Union of India for condoning the delay
stands allowed.

I.A. No. 10/2000, filed for intervention by four persons in I.A. No.2/
99 stands allowed.
F
I.A. No. 9199, filed by Parmanand Lal to intervene in the Contempt
Petition No.121//99 stands allowed.

I.A. No. 11/2000, filed by the Union of India for impleadment of
Parmanand Lal and Brij Mohan stands allowed.
G
I.A. No .. 12/2000, filed by Parmanand himself for intervention also
stands allowed. ., ...
I.A. No. 2199, filed by the Union of India for clarification, Contempt
Petition(C) No. 121/99, filed by the Madras Telephone SC/ST Social Welfare
H Association, C.A. Nos. 6485-86 of 1998 filed against the order of the Central
U.0.l. v. MADRAS TELEPHONE S.C. AND S.T. ASSN. [PATTANAIK, J.] 625
Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi and I.A. Nos. 4 & 5 A
of 1999, filed in C.A. Nos. 6485-86/98 for interim relief would stand disposed
of by this common judgment.

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 B
of Assistant Engineer from the post of Junior Engineer in Tele-communication
circles. It may be stated that prior to 1966, the Junior Engineers were being
designated as Engineering Supervisors Telecom/Wireless Supervisors Telecom.
Before the Telegraph Engineering Service Class II Recruitment Rules, 1966
framed in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso tc{Article 309 of the
Constitution of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the recruitment rules'), came C
into force the promotion from the post of erstwhile Engineering Supervisor
rif
Telecom (re-designated as Junior Engineer) to the pos[ Assistant Engineer
was being made in accordance with the instructions c~ntained in paragraph
206 of the Post and Telegraph Manual Volume IV. The said instructions were
obviously the executive instructions, which governed the field in the absence D
of statutory rules. The aforesaid instructions contained in para 206 of the P&
T Manual are extracted herein below in extenso for better appreciation of the
point of controversy:

"206. All Junior Engineers recruited after the 1st January, 1929, under E
the new system after serving for 5 years in Engineering Branch may
be permitted to appear at the Departmental Qualifying Examination,
which will be held from time to time in the subjects enumerated
below, provided they have a good record. This qualifying examination
is intended to test the general ability of Engineering Supervisors and
F
•• their knowledge in the latest developments in Telegraphy and Te-
lephony. A pass in this examination is an essential condition for
promotion in Telegraph Engineering and Wireless service, Class II.
2. Promotion to the T.E. & W.S. Class II, will be made according to
the principle of seniority-cum-fitness but the Engineering Supervisors
who pass the qualifying examination earlier will rank senior as a G
group to those who pass the examination on subsequent occasions i.e.
officials who passed the examination held in 1956 will rank as en bloc
senior to those who passed in 1957. Their seniority inter se will,
however, be according to their seniority in the cadre of Engineering
Supervisors. H
626 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000) 3 S.C.R.
A 3. This examination will be conducted in the following three sub"
jects:-

(i) Telegraph and Telephony (Without books) 100 marks

(ii) Line Construction and Transmission
B (Without books) 100 marks

(iii) Code Rules(With books) 100 marks

One question paper will be set in each subject. In order to qualify
in the examination the officials must obtain 10% of marks in each subject.
c 4. The detailed syllabus for the examination is indicated in Appendix No.
,15A."

UndJ the aforesaid instructions all Junior Engineers, on completion of
of
five years service in Engineering Branch, were being permitted to appear
at the departmental qualifying examination, provided they maintain a good
D service record. The 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
E 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. 111e recruitment rules came into force
w.e.f. ·1sth of June, 1966, on being notified. Rule 5 of the Recruitment Rules
F provides the method of recruitment to the service, the period of probation and
the lower grades from which the promotion would be made, as indicated in
columns 5 to 13 of the Schedule and Appendix I and Appendix II to the rules.
The 'service' has been defined in Rule 2(e) to mean the Telegraph Engineer-
ing Service (Class II). Under Appendix I, recruitment to the service is
required to be made entirely by promotion on the basis of selection of
G officials, indicated in paragraph (ii) of the said Appendix, through a quali-
fying departmental examination. It further stipulates that an approved list has
to be prepared by a duly constituted Departmental Promotion Committee by
selection from amongst the officials, who qualify in the departmental exami-
nation. Para (ii) of Appendix I enumerates the category of officials who are
H eligible for promotion to the service in Class II. Under Paragraph (iii) of
U.O.I. v. MADRAS TELEPHONE S.C. AND S.T. ASSN. [PATTANAIK, J.] 627

'- A
Appendix I, the departmental qualifying examination for promotion to the A
Service in Class II is normally held at least once in a calendar year in the
manner prescribed in Appendix Ill. The Engineering Supervisors must com-
plete five years of service, so as to be eligible for appearing at the depart-
mental qualifying examination. Under Paragraph (v) of said Appendix I, the
eligibility list of candidates for consideration of Departmental Promotion
B
Committee is to be prepared in accordance with the instructions as may be
used by the Government from time to time. In accordance with the provisions
contained in paragraph (v) of Appendix I, the Government of India, Depart-
ment of Communication, issued instructions dated 28th of June, 1966,
indicating the procedure for preparation of eligibility list of the officers for
being placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee. Under the said c
instmctions, separate list is required to be prepared for each year of recruit-
ment. Paragraph (v) of the aforesaid instructions is rather important for our
purpose, which is extracted herein below in extenso:
~

"(v) All officials of a particular year of recruitment/appointment, who D
have qualified in an earlier examination, would rank en bloc senior
to those officials of the same year of recruitment/appointment who
qualify in subsequent examination."

The aforesaid instructions unequivocally indicates that from amongst
the Engineering Supervisors, recruited in a particular year of recmitment, E
those who pass ·the departmental examination 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
F
• 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 ~. the High Court of Madras with the
prayer that the eligibility list be prepared by determining the seniority on the G
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 H
628 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000) 3 S.C.R.
A recruitment for the purpose of seniority is extraneous and irrelevant and it
accordingly directed that the eligibility list be arranged according to the year
of passing the qualifying examination and amongst those, who pass the
examination in the same year, the list should be according to their merit, as
seen from the marks obtained in the examination. The Judgment of the
B Tribunal was assailed by the Union of India in the Supreme Court and upon
leave being granted, the same was registered as Civil Appeal No. 4339 of
1995. This Court came to the conclusion that the directions given by the
Tribunal really amounts to re-writing the rules, which could not have been
done by it. On consideration of the relevant provisions of the Recruitment
Rules and the instructions, issued thereunder, the Court came to the conclu-
c sion that the eligibility list has to be prepared according to the year of
recruitment. This Court did not accept the stand of the Association that the
list should be prepared with reference to the year of confirrnation. When the
Court disposed of the aforesaid Civil Appeal, the Judgment of the Allahabad
High Court in the writ petition, filed by P.N.Lal and Brij Mohan (Writ Petition
D Nos. 2739/81 and 3652/81) had not been brought to the notice of the Court
and against the said Judgment of Allahabad High Court, the Union of India
had come to the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition No. 3384-86 of
1986 and that Special Leave Petition was dismissed on 8.4.86. While dismiss-
ing the Special Leave Petition, the Court passed the following order:
E " ............... In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are
not inclined to interfere with the judgment of the High Court except
to a limited extent... ..............."

The Allahabad High Court considered the grievances of the applicant
F before him viz. Parmanand Lal and Brij Mohan on the basis of instructions
contained in paragraph 206 of the P & T Manual and the provisions of the
Recruitment Rules did not come up for consideration. The Court ultimately
had directed that the two petitioners before it viz. Parmanand Lal and Brij
Mohan should be promoted with effect from the date prior to a date of
promotion of any person, who passed the departmental examination, subse-
G quent to them and adjust their seniority accordingly. When this Court
dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the Union of India, though it
was stated that the special leave 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
H High Court except to a limited extent. It is, therefore; obvious that while
U.O.I. v. MADRAS TELEPHONE .'i.C. AND S.T. ASSN. [PATTANAIK, J.] 629
dismissing the special leave petition, the Court had not examined the provi- A
sions 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
B
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-commu- C
nication Engineering Service Association had preferred Special Leave Peti-
tion No. 16698 of 1992 and batch, which stood disposed of by judgment
dated 13th of May, 1994. This Court came to hold that the Tribunal was right
in following the Judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Parmanand's case
which has become final by disposal of the Union Gove1mnent' s SLP against D
the same, which deals with the interpretation of paragraph 206 of the P &
T Manual. This Court also took notice of another judgment of the Court dated
18th of September, 1992 passed in T.P.(Civil) No. 417 of 1992 in Writ
Petition (Civil) No. 460 of 1992 along with SLP. (Civil) Nos. 9063-64 of
1992. In the judgment of this Court dated 18th of September, ~2 in
T.P.(Civil) No. 417 of 1992 in Writ Petition(Civil) No. 460 of 1992 in the E
case of Junior Telecom Officers Forum & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.,
. this Court was of the view that the controversy relates to the mode of
promotion to the Telecom Engineering Service Group "B" as well as fixation
of seniority of the Junior Telecom Officers/Assistant Engineers in that cat-
egory and the preparation of eligibility or the approved list for the said F
purpose by the department in accordance with the recruitment rules and
paragraph 206 of the P & T Manual Volume IV. The Court no doubt has
noticed the arguments advanced by placing reliance on the provisions of the
recruitment rules of 1966 but it ultimately came to the concll1ilion that the
views of the Allahabad High Court has reached a finality because of the
dismissal of the SLP against the same and as such the eligibility list is
G
required to be prepared in accordance with paragraph 206 of the P & T
Manual. The aforesaid conclusion is undoubtedly incorrect, as the Judgment
of the Allahabad High Court proceeded by interpreting paragraph 206 of the
p & T Matifttil, whlcb. was an administrative instruction which governed the
field until promulgation of the recruitment rules framed under proviso to H
630 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 3 S.C.R.
A Article 309 of the Constitution. Once the statutory recruitment rules have
come into force and procedure has also been prescribed under the said rules
for preparation of the eligibility list of officers for promotion to the Engi-
neering service Class II by notification dated 28th of June, 1966, it is that
procedure which has to be adopted and the earlier administrative instruction
contained in paragraph 206 of the P & T.Manual cannot be adhered to. Under
B
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
C 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 recruit-
ment in the feeder category. In other words, if in 1958, the Departmental
••
D
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 prepared by the
E Departmental Promotion Committee of the officers recruited in different
recruitment years in the feeder category and the criteria for promotion being
seniority-cum-fitness, then it would create no problem in promoting the
officers concerned. As to the inter se position of the officials belonging to
the same year of recruitment in the feeder category, the procedure to be
F adopted has been indicated in paragraph (iii) of the Memorandum dated 28th
of June, 1966. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion y
that the Judgment of this Court in Civil Appeal No. 4339 of 1995 has rightly
been decided in interpreting the relevant provisions of the recruitment rules
read with the procedure prescribed under the Memorandum dated 28th of
G June, 1966. We, however, make it clear that the persons who have already
got the benefit like Parmanand Lal and Brij Mohan by virtue of the judgments
in their favour, they will not suffer and their promotion already made will
not be affected by this judgment of ours.

Since Departmental Authorities had not implemented the decisions of
H ·this Court in Civil Appeal No. 4339 of 1995 for which a Contempt Petition
U.0.1. v. MADRAS TELEPHONE S.C. AND S.T. ASSN. [PATTANAIK, J.) 631
,.;. Ao. bad been filed, having regard to the circumstances under which the Depart- A
mental Authorities entertained bona fide difficulties, it would not be proper
to proceed against the authorities under the contempt and the contempt
proceedings accordingly are dropped. We would, however, direct the Depart-
mental Authorities to proceed in accordance with law and in accordance with
the observations made by us in this Judgment and promotions may be made B
within a period of six months from the date of this judgment.

CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 6485-86 of 1998:

These appeals by Parmanand Lal is directed against the order of the
Central Administrative Tribunal dated 11th of April, 1997. Said Parmanand c
Lal had approached the Tribunal, challenging the order of reversion dated
4.2.93 and the basis of said reversion was refixation of the seniority in the
rank of Engineering Supervisor, because of some judgments of different
Tribunals and because of some Judgments of this Court. We have considered
this question in great detail and we have held that the question of seniority
in the feeder cadre of Junior Engineers, when persons belonging to the same D
recruitment year are recommended, has to be decided in accordance with
paragraph (iii) of the Memorandum dated 28th of June, 1966 and in accord-
ance 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 E
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
F
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 latter 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 directions given by some G
other Tribunals, deciding the principle of re-fixation of seniority and it is on
that basis an order of reversion was passed, we have no hesitation to come
to the conclusion that the order of reversion is untenable and unjustified on
the grounds on which the said reversion has been passed, and as such cannot
be sustained in law. We make it clear that the seniority of Parmanand in the H
632 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 3 S.C.R.
A cadre of Junior Engineer, fixed on the basis of the directions of Allahabad ..._ ....,
High Court, after dismissal of the SLP against the same by this Court is not
liable to be altered by virtue of a different interpretation being given for
fixation of seniority by different Benches of the Central Administrative
Tribunal. The impugned order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal
B is erroneous and we quash the same and allow the civil appeals filed by the
said Parmanand Lal.

After closure of the arguments, an application has been filed on 18th
of April, 2000 by Promotee Telecom Engineers Forum, New Delhi through
its President, seeking intervention in the matter, has prayed for an opportunity
C of being heard. It is not possible to re-hear the matter again. The prayer
accordingly stands rejected.

All these appeals and applications are disposed of accordingly. There
will be no order as to costs.

D TN.A. Appeals and Applications disposed of.