9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (9) TMI 588X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rted in (2000) 9 SCC 71 Union of India Vs. Madras Telephone SC & ST Social Welfare Association dated April 26, 2000 protects the seniority and consequent promotion of persons who had judgments in their favour from the Central Administrative Tribunal duly confirmed by this Court which have thus attained finality. Their seniority and promotion, therefore, cannot be disturbed in any manner whatsoever. The respondents who have revised the seniority list on 22nd, 26th and 28th March, 2001 respectively and purporting to give effect thereto issued the letter dated March 30, 2001, must recognize the finality of the judgments in favour of the applicants and restore them to their original seniority. 2. To appreciate the controversy it is necessary to refer to the background in which this question has arisen. 3. The applicants are/were members of the Telegraph Engineering Service Class II. Before coming into force of the Telegraph Engineering Service Class II Recruitment Rules, 1966 framed in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the promotion from the post of erstwhile Engineering Supervisor Telecom (re-designated as Junior Engineer) to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eligibility list below the last man who passed the qualifying examination in 1975. The department contended that the eligibility list had been arranged on the basis of seniority, based on the year of recruitment and ignoring the year of passing the qualifying departmental examination, as required by the Recruitment Promotion Rules of 1966. The Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court considered the submissions urged before it in the light of the Recruitment Rules of 1966 as also the Rules of 1981 and para 206 of the P & T Manual and concluded that those who qualified in the departmental examination earlier were entitled to be promoted prior to those who qualified later, irrespective of the year of their initial recruitment. It was held that para 206 of the Manual was not in conflict with either the Rules of 1966 or 1981, but was supplemental to those Rules. Relief was accordingly granted to the writ petitioners based on the interpretation of the Rules and para 206 of the P & T Manual. 5. Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal were preferred by the Union of India challenging the aforesaid decision of the Allahabad High Court which were numbered as Special Leave Petition Nos. 3384 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arlier litigation right up to this Court, but also by the Union of India. The order made by this Court in SLP (C ) Nos. 3384-86 of 1986 interfering with the judgment of the Allahabad High Court to a limited extent is an order made on the merits of the case as is quite apparent from the expressions used in that order and is a binding precedent. The issues were again raised and agitated by the Union of India as well as JTOA in SLP (C ) Nos. 19716- 22 of 1991 against the judgment of Principal Bench of CAT dated June 7, 1991 unsuccessfully. Those judgments have settled the controversy and have become final and binding in respect of the questions debated therein and the issues settled thereby and as was observed by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Makhanlal Waza Vs. State of J & K, the Union of India and its officers are bound to follow the same even if the members of the Forum or a majority of the engineers were not individually parties in the case before the Allahabad High Court. Since, the issues now raised have been agitated twice over, it is not permissible for the petitioners to once again reagitate the matter by coming now under the 'cloak' of a Forum. The preliminar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elfare Association had filed a writ petition before the Madras High Court with a prayer that the eligibility list must be prepared by determining the seniority on the basis of confirmation as Junior Engineer. That list should form the basis for promotion to Class II Service. The writ petition stood transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Tribunal by its judgment dated December 31, 1986 held that the year of recruitment for the purpose of seniority is extraneous and irrelevant and accordingly directed that the eligibility list be arranged according to the year of passing the qualifying examination. As amongst those who pass the examination in the same year, the list should be according to their merit as seen from the marks obtained in the examination. The judgment of the Tribunal was challenged before this Court in Civil Appeal No.4339 of 1995 and the judgment of this Court is reported in (1997) 10 SCC 226 Union of India Vs. Madras Telephone SC & ST Social Welfare Association; This Court held : "From the aforesaid clause read with instructions, it is clear that the eligibility lists have to be prepared according to the year of recruitment/ appointment. The respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... procedure which has to be adopted, and the earlier administrative instructions contained in para 206 of the P & T Manual cannot be adhere to. It observed that the contrary conclusion of the Allahabad High Court was undoubtedly incorrect. However, it made a pertinent observation with which we are concerned in the instant application. While upholding the correctness of the law as declared in 1997 (10) SCC 226, it was clarified as follows:- "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, will not suffer and their promotion already made will not be affected by this judgment of ours". 13. By the same judgment this Court also disposed of the appeal preferred by Parmanand Lal which was directed against the Order of Central Administrative Tribunal dated April 11, 1997. Parmanand Lal had approached the Tribunal challenging the order of reversion because of judgments of different Tribunals and of this Court. This Court observed that though the correctness of the view in (1997) 10 SCC 226 had been upheld, promotions already effected pursuant to the judgment of the Allahabad High Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt had protected his seniority as well as promotion but in the instant case only the promotion has been protected and not the seniority. 16. So far as the last submission is concerned, we consider the submission to be hyper technical and does not deserve serious consideration. If the promotions have been protected, it is only on the basis of seniority determined by the concerned authority in accordance with the principles laid down in the earlier judgments. 17. So far as the question of delay is concerned, the applicants have explained that after the judgment of this Court, they have not been sitting idle. They have referred to the various proceedings taken by them before this Court, before the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi and thereafter before the High Court. In fact, while disposing of their writ petition, the Delhi High Court in its Order of December 16, 2002 observed that since the issue involved interpretation of the judgment of this Court in (2000) 9 SCC 71 (supra) the petitioners were free to approach this Court seeking clarification. The applicants, thereafter filed a Special Leave Petition No.9189 of 2003 which was withdrawn by the petitioners with liberty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
