2000 Supreme(SC) 874

2000(3) Supreme 754
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras)
G.B. Pattanaik, R.P. Sethi & Shivaraj V. Patil, JJ.
Union of India -Appellant
versus
Madras Telephone S.C. & S.T., Social Welfare Association etc. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4339 of 1995
With
Contempt Petition No. 121 of 1999 in C.A. No. 4339 of 1995
And
Civil Appeal Nos. 6485-6486 of 1998
Decided on 26-4-2000
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : Mukul Rohtagi, R.N. Trivedi, Additional Solicitor Generals, Shanti Bhushan, E.X. Joseph, A.D.N. Rao, Sr. Advocates, P. Parmeshwaran, R.K. Kapoor, P. Verma, S.K. Srivastava, Sumit Kumar, Anis Ahmad Khan, Naresh Kaushik, Narender K. Roy, Ms. Shilpa Chohan, Mrs. L. Kaushik, A.N. Dass, M.M. Kashyap, Ms. Neeru Vaid, Arvind Kumar Sharma, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, S.S. Sabharwal, Lakshmi Narasimha, Advocates.
For the Petitioner in Contempt Petition. No. 121/99 : Paramanand Lal - in person.

Headnote:(i) Telephone Engineering Service Class II Recruitment Rule, 1966-Rule 5-Post and Telegraph Manual Volume IV-Paragraph 206-Promotion for post of Assistant Engineers from Junior Engineers in Telecommunication Circle-Method of recruitment-Selection list-Preparation of-Eligibility list has to be prepared according to year of recruitment not with reference to year of confirmation as Junior Engineer-Recruit has to be made entirely by promotion on basis of selection through a qualifying departmental examination-Paragraph 206 of P&T Mannual cannot be adhered to after Statutory Recruitment Rules came to effect-Separate list to be prepared by DPC of officers recruited in different recruitment years-Inter se seniority of officials belonging to same year of recruitment would be as indicated in Para (iii) of Memorandum dated 28.6.1966-Judgment in Union of India v. Madras Telephone SC/ST Social Welfare Association (C.A. No. 4339 of 1995 decided on 13.2.1997) has rightly been decided.

       Held : 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 Engineering 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 the recruitment rules read with Schedule appended thereto and Appendix I to the rules, the recruitment to the service in Class II has to be made entirely by promotion on the basis of selection through a qualifying departmental examination. The Departmental Promotion Committee is duty bound to prepare an approved list by selection from amongst the officials who qualify in the departmental examination. In view of the amendment to the rules made on 4th of February, 1987, the criteria for selection is seniority-cum-fitness. In accordance with the prescribed procedure for preparation of eligibility list, notified by the Government on the 28th of June, 1966, the Departmental Promotion Committee has to prepare separate lists for each year of recruitment in the feeder category. In other words, if in 1958, the Departmental Promotion Committee is recommending people for promotion to Class II, then all the eligible candidates who had passed the departmental examination and who had been recruited in 1950, are to be listed separately from those officers who also have qualified departmental examination and were recruited in the year 1951 and so on and so forth. Once, separate lists are prepared by the 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 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 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 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. (Para 17)

       (ii) Service Law-Promotion-Promotion given on basis of decision of Court interpreting service rules-Subsequent decision of Courts giving different interpretation-Decision on basis of which appellant stood promoted attained finality on dismissal of SLP-Appellant could not have been reverted because of some latter judgments-Seniority of appellant is not liable to be altered. (Para 19)