DIRECTOR OF POSTAL SERVICES Vs. C MUNESWARA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Madhava Rao, J.-This writ appeal is against the order of the learned single Judge directing to consider the case of the writ petitioner for the post of Lower Selection Grade (hereinafter referred to as 'L. S. G. Post') with effect from 1st June, 1974.

(2.) The learned Single Judge following the decision in V. Jagadeshwar Rao v. P. M. G., Andhra Circle, issued the direction sought for to consider the promotion of the writ tioner though certain disciplinary proceedings were pending against him. In Jagadeshwar Rao's case*, our learned brother Madhava Reddy, J., held that when a particular Go\ ern- ment servant's name is included in the list, but he is not promoted and his juniors are promoted, it cannot be said that he is not punished. It was also held that there was no rule which authorises the withholding of the promotion otherwise than in accordance with the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules (hereinafter referred to as C.C.S. (C.C.A.) Rules'). The administrative instructions contained in paragraph 156 of the Posts and Telegraphs Manual Volume III which authorises the withholding of promotion runs counter to the C.C.S. (C.C.A.) Rules and that it cannot so override the C.C.S. (C.C.A.) Rules framed by the President under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution.

(3.) The facts necessary to understand the instant case are that the writ petitioner was selected and appointed as a Time Scale Clerk in the Postal Department on 6th September, 1954 against the reserved vacancy for scheduled tribes. At the time of appointment aJl the necessary certificates including the caste certificate dated 11th August, 1954 in original issued by the District Magistrate, West Godavari as 'Konda Kapu' were produced. While so, the Superintendent of Post Offices through proceedings dated 4th September, 1972 directed the writ petitioner to produce evidence-either S.S.L.C. register or a certi- 'ficate in prescribed pro forma to the effect that he belongs to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. So, the petitioner again submitted an attested copy of the first page of the S. S. L. C. register showing that he belongs to 'Konda Kapu' community. Again the Superintendent asked him to submit his community certificate in the prescribed pro forma. Even though the writ petitioner represented that such a certificate, was already submitted at the time of appointment, yet without considering his representation he was informed through proceedings dated 6th August, 1974 that non- submission of proof in support of his community would involve the risk of losing the promotion. It is suffice to note here that the petitioner being sufficiently senior standing at petiserial'No. 1124 besidte belonging to scheduled tribe was eagerly expecting his promotion against the reserved vacancy and that some 700 L.S.G. posts became available in Andhra Circle and the, seniors in the cadre of time-scale-clerk were considered and promoted to those posts. However in the list released on 2nd November, 1974, the writ petitioner did not find his name though the names of four of his juniors such as V. Pallamaraju at S. No. 1431 and belonging to konda kapu community were found therein. When the employee inquired the Superintendent he was informed that he was selected to the L.S.G. post on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness against the reserved vacancy by the Director of Postal Services, but his name could not be released in view of the complaint made by one Singamsetty Kanaka Durga Kumar that the writ petitioner, does not belong to konda kapu community. He was also informed that the Inspector of Post Offices, Nidadavole, was directed to inquire into the complaint and on receipt of that report, release of his name would be considered. Thereupon, it is submitted by the writ petitioner that an inquiry was conducted into that and the report also seems to have been given in his favour. But the Superintendent stated that the matter was being referred to the District/Collector, Eluru and his case for promotion would be considered after receipt of the reply from the District Collector. Thereafter the petitioner was directed to give his father's name and permanent address. The inquiry was completed by the Tahsildar, Kowur. Even then the name of this employee was not found in the list released on 2nd August, 1975. Thus, the petitioner's promotion was withheld though he was selected and appointed by the competent authority, Director of Postal Services.