1. Eligibility for promotion to Group B posts under a 6% quota for General Line Officials via competitive examination under the 1987 Recruitment Rules. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
1995 Supreme(SC) 946
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SAWAN RAM MALRA
versus
Union of India
Decide on September 13, 1995
Advocates:
ANIL KATIYAR, K.AMARESWARI, P.D.SHARMA, VASIM A.QADRI
ANIL KATIYAR, K.AMARESWARI, P.D.SHARMA, VASIM A.QADRI
The Court held that General Line Officials in the Railway Mails Service (RMS) are eligible for promotion under the 6% quota of the 1987 Rules. Clarifications issued for the superseded 1986 Rules cannot be applied to restrict eligibility under the new 1987 Rules.
Headnote:
Postmasters Service Group b (Recruitment) Rules, 1986 – Postal Superintendent Service Group b Posts (Recruitment) Rules, 1979 – Postal Superintendent/postmasters Group b Recruitment Rules, 19 – Appellant is eligible for promotion to Postal Superintendents/post-masters Group b posts under six per cent, quota reserved for promotion of General Line Officials by means of Departmental competitive examination as per Department of Posts, Postal Superintendent/postmasters Group b Recruitment Rules, 1987 making of there were two services in Department of Posts Postal Superintendent Service Group b and Postmasters Service Group b. Recruitment to Postal Superintendent Service Group b was governed by Postal Superintendent Service Group b Posts Rules, 1979 and recruitment to the Postmasters Service Group b was governed by Postmasters Service Group b (Recruitment) Rules, 1986 – Held, Appellant, in our opinion, was entitled to be considered for promotion against posts on basis of his performance in Departmental competitive examination was allowed to appear letter result of appellant for said examination was announced and he was added in list of selected candidates at Serial would show that on basis of his performance in Departmental competitive examination held appellant was selected and but for his being treated as ineligible for promotion against posts by means of Departmental competitive examination he would have been promoted to those posts along with others who were selected on basis of said examination – Respondent are directed to consider case of appellant for promotion to the Postal Superintendent Service Group b/postmasters Service Group b against posts reserved from amongst General Line Officials on basis of result of Departmental competitive examination conducted in pursuance of circular – Appellant is found entitled to such promotion on basis of his performance in said Departmental competitive examination he should be promoted with effect from other persons were so promoted on basis of result of said examination – Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether administrative clarifications issued under superseded rules can exclude General Line Officials in the Railway Mails Service from promotion under the current recruitment rules. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. The 1987 Rules differ from 1986 Rules and contain no limiting language excluding Railway Mails Service officials from the General Line quota. (Para 5 )
4. Administrative clarifications issued under superseded rules cannot be treated as supplemental to new rules to restrict eligibility where the new rules contain no such limitation. (Para 5 )
5. Appeal allowed; respondents directed to consider the appellant for promotion based on examination results with all consequential benefits. (Para 6 )
6. Can administrative clarifications issued under superseded rules restrict eligibility under new recruitment rules?
No. Clarifications issued in relation to superseded rules cannot be treated as supplemental to new rules, particularly when the new rules do not contain explicit words of limitation to exclude a specific class of officials. (Para 5 )
7. Does the inclusion of a specific service for one promotion quota imply its inclusion in another quota for the same post?
Yes. If a service is expressly eligible for one promotion quota, there is no reason to exclude its general line officials from another quota for the same post unless the rules explicitly provide such a limitation. (Para 5 )
8. How should the term General Line of Officials be interpreted in the absence of a limiting definition in recruitment rules?
In the absence of limiting words in the rules, the term should be read plainly to include all officials fitting the described grade and service criteria, regardless of their specific wing or department. (Para 5 )
Judgment
S. C. AGRAWAL
( 1 ) LEAVE granted.
( 2 ) THE short question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant is eligible for promotion to Postal Superintendents/post-masters Group b posts under the six per cent, quota reserved for promotion of General Line Officials by means of Departmental competitive examination as per the Department of Posts, Postal Superintendent/postmasters Group b Recruitment Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the 1987 Rules ). Prior to the making of the 1987 Rules there were 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 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 Superintendents/postmasters Service Group b was created and recruitment to the said common cadre is governed by the 1987 Rules. Appointment to the post of Postal Superintendent/postmasters Group b is by promotion in the following manner:
"by promotion
(1) 94 Per Cent from amongst officers holding the post of Inspector, 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
(II) with 8 years regular service in the scale of Rs. 1400-2300 or above or equivalent.
(2) 6 Per Cent from amongst General Line of officials by means of a Departmental competitive examination amongst officers belonging 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. "
( 3 ) AT the relevant time, the appellant was employed as Head Sorting Assistant (HSA) in Higher Selection Grade-II in the Railway Mails Service (RMS ). In response to the circular dated 12/08/1988, calling for applications from eligible candidates for the Departmental competitive examination for filling up 6 Per Cent posts of Postal Superintendents/postmasters Service Group b reserved for General Line Officials the appellant submitted 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 name of the appellant was not included in the said list though he had secured 67 Per Cent marks. He was subsequently informed that his name was not included in the merit list because General Line Officials in the RMS are not eligible for promotion against 6 Per Cent posts. The appellant thereupon moved the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal ). The Tribunal, by the impugned judgment dated 19/01/1994, has dismissed the said application of the appellant. The Tribunal has upheld the contention urged on behalf of the respondents that in view of the clarifications issued by the Department vide letters dated 30/01/198 7/03/1987 and the Savingram dated 23/04/1987 only General Line Officials working in the Post Offices are eligible to participate in the Departmental competitive examination for promotion to 6 Per Cent Group b posts and that General Line Officials working in RLO/rms/spco/psd and foreign posts were not eligible. The Tribunal has held that the appellant was admitted to the examination by mistake overlooking those instructions. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment of the Tribunal, the appellant has filed
