2010 Supreme(SC) 270
2010 (2) Supreme 642
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Rajasthan High Court)
B. Sudershan Reddy, Surinder Singh Nijjar, JJ.
M. Jagdish Vyas & Ors. — Appellants
versus
Union of India & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No.4345-4346 of 2007
with
Civil Appeal Nos.4349-4350 of 2007
and
Civil Appeal No.4351 of 2007
Decided on : 29-3-2010
IMPORTANT POINT
Clearly distinct and different class of candidates cannot claim parity.
Headnote:(a) Service Law – Appointment – Material on record establishing that deputationists were treated as a class apart from the departmental candidates – As such they cannot claim parity with departmental candidates. (Para 17)
(b) Service Law – Appointment – Deputationists being a separate class in themselves – They had to appear only in one paper, Paper VI and VIII combined – The departmental candidates on the other hand had to appear in five papers – Criteria for declaration of results for the departmental candidates is also different from the deputationists – Results of the departmental candidates declared irrespective of the merit while the result of deputationists has been declared in the order of merit. (Paras 18 and 19)
(c) Constitution of India – Articles 14 and 16 – The deputationists and the departmental candidates clearly constituting two different and distinct classes in any respects – Classification having nexus with the aim of affording opportunity to as many departmental candidates as possible but absorb only best of the deputationists – No infirmity. (Para 20)
Facts of the case:
1.The appellants had challenged the declaration of results of deputationists who had appeared in the Examination for Junior Accounts Officer (JAO), Part-II dated 29.08.2002 in the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur.
2.It was claimed by the appellants that their names had been wrongly omitted from the list of successful candidates in the result dated 29.08.2002 as they had qualified the examination on the basis of the criteria laid down in the letter dated 23.07.2002.
3.CAT allowed the OA which was reversed by the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
There is no merit in the appeal.
JUDGMENT
Surinder Singh Nijjar, J. —
1.These appeals have been filed against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur rendered in DB Civil Writ Petition No.5193/04 and DB Civil Writ Petition No.5638/04 dated 3.5.2005. By the aforesaid common judgment the High Court had held that the instructions dated 23.07.2002 had not superseded the qualifications laid down by Central Government in its letter dated 24.6.2002. By virtue of the aforesaid decision of the High Court the appellants have lost the opportunity for being absorbed in the service of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL). Civil Appeal No.4351/2007 has been filed against the order of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dated 17.11.2005 in O.A. No.116/2005 whereby the CAT has dismissed the O.A. following the decision of the Rajasthan High Court which is the subject matter of the two above noted appeals. We propose to dispose of all the aforesaid appeals by this common judgment.
2.The appellants had challenged the declaration of results of deputationists who had appeared in the Examination for Junior Accounts Officer (JAO), Part-II dated 29.08.2002 in the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur. It was claimed by the appellants that their names had been wrongly omitted from the list of successful candidates in the result dated 29.08.2002 as they had qualified the examination on the basis of the criteria laid down in the letter dated 23.07.2002. By the aforesaid letter BSNL had declared the result of candidates who had qualified in JAO, Part-II Examination held in December 2000. In that letter, the qualifying standards and the grace marks required to be obtained by the successful candidates were as follows:
“General candidates: (1) 33% in each subject and 35% in aggregate. (2) 6 grace marks in any one subject. SC/ST candidates: (1) 25% in each subject and 27% in aggregate. (2) 6 grace marks in any one subject.”
3.The appellants were permanent employees of the Postal Department. They had already qualified the Part-I and Part-II Examination of Junior Accounts Officer (JAO) in the Postal Department. Since the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) was having shortage of qualified JAO, the usual practice was to fill the vacant posts by taking JAOs on deputation from other departments in Union of India. Large number of employees from the postal department used to be taken on deputation in DoT batch-wise depending on the particular need of the borrowing department, i.e., DoT. It seems a policy decision was taken to absorb the employees of the Department of Posts who were qualified for the posts of JAOs and have passed both Part-I and Part-II examinations. The Department of Telecommunications (DoT) also wanted to appoint/promote its own employees who were working on the lower ranks of Clerks, Accountants, and Telephone Operators provided they were prepared to pass Part-I and Par-II Examinations for the post of JAO. Keeping in view the aforesaid objectives, DoT framed a scheme dated 30.9.2000 which inter alia provided as under:
“Due to acute shortage in the grade of Junior Accounts Officers in Department of Telecommunications, this Department had taken certain officials from other Departments, including the Department of Posts, on deputation to work as Junior Accounts Officers and posted them to various Telecom Circles/Units. In order to have the services of these officials on long term basis, in view of large number of vacancies existing in the Department of Telecom in the grade of JAO as on date, it has now been decided, with the approval of competent authority, to absorb these deputationists as Junior Accounts Officers in DoT/DTS/DTO, as one time measure, after conducting an examination. The examination will be conducted on certain terms and conditions set out separately in respect of those officials who will be working on deputation in DOT/proposed BSNL as on 18.10.2000 and for all those who have earlier worked in DoT on deputation ba