9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition 2. Mode of Promotion and Fixation of Seniority 3. Interpretation of Para 206 of the P&T Manual 4. Finality of Previous Judgments and Precedents Summary: 1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition: The petitioners, represented by the Junior Telecom Officers Forum, sought to reopen issues already settled by previous judgments. The Supreme Court noted that the petitioners' cause had been previously espoused by the JTOA (India) and that the issues had been directly and substantially raised in earlier litigation. The Court held that the petitioners could not reopen the matter, asserting that their viewpoint had not been projected earlier. The preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition was upheld, and the writ petition was dismissed. 2. Mode of Promotion and Fixation of Seniority: The controversy revolved around the mode of promotion to Telecom Engineering Service (Group B) and the fixation of seniority of junior telecom officers and assistant engineers. The petitioners argued for promotions based on the year of recruitment, irrespective of the year of passing the departmental examination, and sought to ignore Para 206 of the P&T Manual. The Court noted that these issues had been considered in earlier judgments, which had 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 initial recruitment. 3. Interpretation of Para 206 of the P&T Manual: Para 206 of the P&T Manual provides that a pass in the departmental qualifying examination is a condition precedent for promotion to TES (Group B). The petitioners contended that Para 206 should not prevail over the statutory Recruitment Rules of 1966 and 1981. However, the Court found that this argument had already been addressed in previous judgments, which held that Para 206 was supplemental to the Recruitment Rules and not in conflict with them. 4. Finality of Previous Judgments and Precedents: The petitioners argued that the dismissal of SLPs in earlier cases did not constitute binding precedents. The Court disagreed, stating that the dismissal of the SLPs was on merits and thus constituted binding precedents. The Court emphasized that the issues had been agitated twice over and had become final and binding. The petitioners' attempt to re-litigate the matter under the guise of a newly formed Forum was impermissible. Conclusion: The writ petition, special leave petitions, and transfer petition were all dismissed. The Supreme Court held that the issues raised had already been settled by previous judgments and could not be reopened. The petitioners were bound by the earlier decisions, and their attempt to re-litigate the matter was deemed an abuse of the process of the court.
|
