2006 (9) TMI 588 - SC - Indian Laws

Application seeking clarification - Rules for preparation of eligibility list of officers for promotion to the Engineering Service Class II by Notification - Promotion from the post of erstwhile Engineering Supervisor Telecom (re-designated as Junior Engineer) to the post of Assistant Engineer - Principle of seniority-cum-fitness - HELD THAT - We direct that such of the applicants whose seniority had been determined by the competent authority, and who had been given benefit of seniority and promotion pursuant to the orders passed by Courts or Tribunals following the principles laid down by the Allahabad High Court in Parmanand Lal's case and approved by this Court, which orders have since attained finality, cannot be reverted with retrospective effect. The determination of their seniority and the consequent promotion having attained finality, 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 rights of such applicants were determined in a duly constituted proceeding, which determination has attained finality, a subsequent judgment of a Court or Tribunal taking a contrary view will not adversely affect the applicants in whose cases the orders have attained finality. We order accordingly. Before parting with this judgment we may observe that we have not laid down any principle or law having universal application. We have only clarified and given effect to an earlier judgment of this Court rendered in an extraordinary situation.

Issues Involved:
1. Clarification of seniority and promotion protection.
2. Interpretation of the Recruitment Rules, 1966 and subsequent rules.
3. Effect of earlier judgments on current seniority and promotion.
4. Validity of administrative instructions versus statutory rules.
5. Delay in filing for clarification.
6. Specific protection of seniority and promotion for certain individuals.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Clarification of Seniority and Promotion Protection:
The applicants sought clarification that the observations made by the Supreme Court in its judgment reported in (2000) 9 SCC 71, specifically protect the seniority and consequent promotion of individuals who had favorable judgments from the Central Administrative Tribunal, which were confirmed by the Supreme Court and attained finality. The applicants argued that their seniority and promotion should not be disturbed by the revised seniority lists issued in March 2001.

2. Interpretation of the Recruitment Rules, 1966 and Subsequent Rules:
The controversy revolves around the method of determining seniority for promotion from the post of Junior Engineer to Assistant Engineer. Initially, seniority was based on the year of passing the qualifying examination as per executive instructions in paragraph 206 of the Post and Telegraph Manual, Vol. IV. However, the Recruitment Rules, 1966 changed this method, emphasizing the year of recruitment/appointment over the year of passing the examination. This shift led to disputes and legal challenges.

3. Effect of Earlier Judgments on Current Seniority and Promotion:
The Supreme Court's earlier judgments, including dismissals of Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) against the Allahabad High Court's decision, established that those who passed the qualifying examination earlier were entitled to promotion over those who passed later, irrespective of their recruitment year. This principle was upheld in several subsequent cases, reinforcing that seniority and promotions determined by these judgments should remain unaffected by later rulings.

4. Validity of Administrative Instructions versus Statutory Rules:
The Court clarified that once statutory recruitment rules came into force, they superseded earlier administrative instructions. The judgment in Civil Appeal No. 4339 of 1995 (1997) 10 SCC 226, which emphasized the statutory rules over paragraph 206 of the Manual, was upheld as the correct interpretation. However, the Court also noted that individuals who had already benefited from earlier judgments should not be adversely affected by this later interpretation.

5. Delay in Filing for Clarification:
The Union of India argued that the application for clarification was filed three and a half years after the judgment, suggesting it should be dismissed due to delay. However, the applicants provided a detailed account of their ongoing legal proceedings, including actions before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Delhi High Court, which directed them to seek clarification from the Supreme Court. The Court accepted this explanation, ruling that the application could not be rejected on the ground of delay.

6. Specific Protection of Seniority and Promotion for Certain Individuals:
The Court concluded that individuals whose seniority and promotion had been determined by competent authorities based on earlier judgments, which had attained finality, could not be adversely affected by the later judgment in Civil Appeal No. 4339 of 1995. This protection extended to those whose cases were similar to Parmanand Lal and Brij Mohan, ensuring that their seniority and promotions remained intact despite the revised interpretation of the rules.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court directed that the seniority and consequent promotions of individuals, determined by earlier judgments and orders that had attained finality, should not be altered by later interpretations. This decision was specific to the extraordinary situation presented and did not establish a universally applicable principle. The Court emphasized that subsequent judgments taking a contrary view would not adversely affect the applicants whose rights had been conclusively determined.

← Previous Next →