SAWAN RAM MALRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(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 By the 1987 Rules, the 1979 Rules and 1986 Rules were superseded and the two cadres were merged and a common cadre of Postal Superintendents/Postmasters Service Group 'B' was created and recruitment to the said common cadre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:

(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 August 12, 1988, calling for applications from eligible candidates for the Departmental competitive examination for filling up 6 % 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% 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% posts. The appellant thereupon moved the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'). The Tribunal, by the impugned judgment dated January 19, 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 January 30, 1987, March 9, 1987 and the Savingram dated April 23, 1987 only General Line Officials working in the Post Offices are eligible to participate in the Departmental competitive examination for promotion to 6% 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 this appeal.