SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(SC) 1459

1996(7) Supreme 64
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.K. Mukherjee and S.P. Kurdukar, JJ.
Jahar Singh -Appellant
versus
Union of India & Ors. -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 11929 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 13959 of 1995)
Decided on 13-9-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : S. Muralidhar and Ms. Neeru Vaid, Advocates.
For the Respondents : P.A. Chaudhary, Sr. Advocate, C.V. Subba Rao, Advocate.

Headnote:SERVICE LAW-Appointment of Accountants in Post Office and Railway Mail Services-Appellant, an employee of Savings Bank Control Organisation appeared in the examination after he was given permission-He came successful-Cancellation of his candidature stating that as he was working in SBCO as LDC he was not eligible to appear for examination-Challenged-Whether respondents were justified in rejecting his claim for appointment to that post after his success in the examination ?-(No). (Paras 9 to 12)

       

JUDGMENT

M.K. Mukherjee, J.-Special Leave granted. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. At all material times the appellant was - and still is - an employee of the Savings Bank Control Organisation (SBCO), Uttar Pradesh Circle, under the Ministry of Communications, Department of Posts, New Delhi. In May, 1992 while working in the Agra Head Post Office he appeared in the examination held for appointment of Accountants in the Post Office (PO) and Railway Mail Services (RMS); and the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Agra Division, Agra vide his letter No. 82/Exam/PO and RMS/Accountant/92 dated November 30, 1992 informed him that he had qualified for that post. The appellant, however, did not get any appointment to the post of Accountant in spite of his such qualification and, on the contrary, on August 26, 1993, he received a copy of a letter dated July 23, 1993 sent by Shri A.K. Kaushal, an Assistant Director General in the office of the Director General (Posts), New Delhi, to Shri Jagadamba Singh, ADOS (Rectt). attached to the office of the Chief Post Master General, U.P. Circle, intimating him that as he (the appellant) was working in SBCO as an LDC (Lower Division Clerk) he was not eligible to appear for the PO and RMS (Accountant examination and his candidature may be cancelled immediately. Since this letter has an important bearing on this appeal we quote the same in extenso :-

"A.K. Kaushal

Asstt. DIR. Genl. (SPN)

141-230/92-SPB-II 23.7.93

Dear Shri Singh,

Please refer to your d.o. letter no. Rectt./M-67/May-92/3 dated 4.5.93 regarding posting of Shri Jahar Singh, SBCO Agra H.P.O. as Accountant.

2. The matter has been examined. Since Shri Jahar Singh was working in SBCO as an LDC he was not eligible to appear for the PO & RMS Accountant Exam as per rules.The candidature of Shri Jahar Singh may be cancelled immediately and he cannot, therefore, be considered for appointment as an Accountant.

With best wishes,

Yours sincerely,

(A.K. Kaushal)

Shri Jagadamba Singh,

A.D.O.S. (Rectt.)

0/o the Chief Postmaster General,

U.P. Circle,

LUCKNOW

Copy to :

1. The PMG Agra Region, Agra.

2. Shri Jahar Singh, PA (SBCO) Agra H.P.O. with reference to his letter dated 28.3.1993 addressed to Member (D), Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi.

(A.K. Kaushal)

Asstt. Director General (SPN)"

(emphasis supplied)

3. Against such cancellation of his candidature the appellant made a representation to the Director General of Posts, New Delhi which was rejected. He then filed an original application in the Central Administrative Tribunal. (CAT) Allahabad Bench wherein he asserted that though his initial appointment in 1983 was as an LDC in SBCO, since August 1, 1991 he was working there as a Postal Assistant (PA) and the permission that was granted to him to appear in the examination for appointment as an Accountant was unqualified - and not provisional. He, therefore, submitted that the respondents were not justified in rejecting his claim for appointment to that post after his success in the examination.

4. In contesting the application the respondents reiterated that the appellant was working as an LDC at the time he appeared for the examination. The other contention that was raised on their behalf was that even the PAs of SBCO acquired an identity of its own after it (SBCO) was reorganised with effect from August 1, 1991 with a different and distinct channel of promotion which did not entitle them to become Accountants in PO and RMS under the extant Rules.

5. In disposing of the application the Tribunal observed that though from the admitted facts of the case it was apparent that the appellant was allowed to appear in the examination for appointment as an Accountant by mistake as he belonged to a separate cadre, the respondents were not justified in cancelling his candidature as he was a bona fide candidate and there was no lapse on his part. It further observed that no rules or circulars were brought













Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top