TMI Blog2006 (9) TMI 588X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nality, the principles laid down in later judgments will not adversely affect their cases. This Court has clearly clarified the position in its aforesaid judgment. The observations made by this Court while disposing of the appeal of Parmanand Lal are also pertinent. This Court clearly laid down the principle that the seniority fixed on the basis of the directions of this Court which had attained finality is not liable to be altered by virtue of a different interpretation being given for fixation of seniority by different benches of Tribunal. Consequently, the promotions already effected on the basis of seniority determined in accordance with the principles laid down in the judgment of the Allahabad High Court cannot be altered. Having regard to the above observations and clarification we have no doubt that such of the applicants whose claim to seniority and consequent promotion on the basis of the principles laid down in the Allahabad High Court's judgment in Parmanand Lal's case have been upheld or recognized by Court or Tribunal by judgment and order which have attained finality will not be adversely affected by the contrary view now taken in the judgment. Since the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ules, 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 the post of Assistant Engineer was made in accordance with the instructions contained in paragraph 206 of Post and Telegraph Manual, Vol. IV. These instructions were executive instructions which governed the field in the absence of statutory rules. In accordance with the aforesaid executive instructions contained in the Manual promotion to Class II was made according to the principle of seniority-cum-fitness. Those who passed the qualifying examination earlier ranked senior as a group to those who passed the examination on subsequent occasions, i.e. officials who passed the examination held in the year 1956 ranked en block senior to those who passed in 1957. Their seniority inter se, however, was determined according to their seniority in the cadre of Engineering Supervisors. However, with the coming into force of the Recruitment Rules, 1966 w.e.f. June 15, 1966, the method of determining seniority was changed. It was provided that the Engineering Supervisors must c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 3386 of 1986. By Order of April 8, 1986 this Court dismissed the special leave petitions observing as follows: Special leave petition is dismissed on merits. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment of the High Court except to a limited extent . 6. It is the case of the applicants that following the judgment of the Allahabad High Court several petitions were allowed by the Principal Bench, Central Administrative Tribunal seeking identical relief. The Principal Bench by a detailed order of June 7, 1991 allowed the applications and issued directions for re-fixation of seniority, keeping in view the relevant recruitment rules and para 206 of the Manual. The Order of the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated June 7, 1991 was challenged before this Court both by the Union of India and Junior Telecommunication Officers Association (India) representing the case of some of the agg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lahabad 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 preliminary objection, therefore, must succeed and is upheld. The writ petition is accordingly held not maintainable and dismissed . 8. The applicants contend that following the judgment of the Allahabad High Court and the Supreme Court, the Benches of the Central Administrative Tribunal decided a large number of cases. In some of the cases appeals were preferred by the Union of India before this Court which were rejected by this Court. The applicants have referred to the judgment of this Court in 1994 Supp (2) SCC 222 Telecommunication Engineering Service Association (India) and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Anr.; wherein in substance the view of the Allahabad High Court was approved by this Court by dismissal of the special leave petitions. The Tribunal in that case had held that the decision of the Allahabad Bench in the case of Parmanand Lal and Brij Mohan and the judgments of the Tribunal following the said decision lay down good law and constitute good precedents to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one 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 respondent's case, before the Tribunal, however, was that the said lists should be prepared not with reference to the year of recruitment/ appointment but with reference to the year of confirmation. The Tribunal neither accepted their statement nor did it uphold the Department's case but directed that these lists should be prepared on the basis of the year of the passing of the Departmental Qualifying Examination and not on the basis of the year of recruitment/ appointment. In our opinion what the Tribunal has done really amounts to rewriting the rule which should not have been done by it. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the Tribunal is set aside. For the same reasons, the order dismissing the review filed by the Union of India, by the Tribunal, is also set aside. No costs . 11. In Civil Appeal No.4339 of 1995, the notice of this Court was not drawn to the earlier judgments of this Court, wherein the Allahabad High Court view had bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cause 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 Court which was upheld by this Court by dismissing the special leave petition filed by the Union of India, will not be altered in any manner. That judgment having attained finality and Parmanand Lal having received the benefit of the said judgment and having been promoted, could not have been reverted because of some later judgments and directions given either by the Tribunals or by this Court. It accordingly, quashed the order of reversion and also clarified that the seniority of Parmanand Lal in the cadre of Assistant Engineer, fixed on the basis of the directions of Allahabad High Court, after dismissal of the special leave petition against the same by this Court, is not liable to be altered by virtue of a different interpretation being given for fixation of seniority by different Benches of the Central Administrative Tribunal. 14. The applicants claim that their cases are also similar and in fact identical to that of Parmanand Lal and Brij Mohan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udgment 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 to seek clarification of the judgment and order of this Court. We are, therefore, satisfied that this application cannot be rejected on the ground of delay. 18. The question then arises as to whether the applicants can claim the protection of their seniority and consequent promotion on the basis of observations and the clarification contained in the judgment of this Court reported in (2000) 9 SCC 71. Having considered all aspects of the matter we are satisfied that those whose cases stand on the same footing as that of Parmanand Lal cannot now be adversely affected by re-determination of their seniority to their disadvantage relying on the later judgment of this Court in C.A. No. 4339 of 1995 reported in (1997) 10 SCC 226 (supra) as affirmed by this Court in its judgment reported in (2000) 9 SCC 71 (supra). 19. We, therefore, direct that such of the applicants whose seniority had been determined by the competent authority, and who ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
