Holding

The 1994 amendment excluded Railway Mail Service clerks from both the 19% and 6% promotion quotas, rendering the respondent ineligible for the departmental examination.

Summary

K.G. Kulkarni, a former sorter in the Railway Mail Service who was working as a clerk in the Speed Post Section, was denied an opportunity to appear for the departmental examination for promotion to Postal Superintendent/Postmaster Group B. He challenged the decision before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which set aside the examination and ordered a fresh one, relying on the Sawan Ram Maira case. The Supreme Court examined the 1987 recruitment rules as amended in 1994, which allocated 19% of posts to inspectors of Post Offices or Railway Mail Service and 6% to clerical line officials in Post Offices/Divisional Offices. The Court held that the amendment expressly limited the 6% quota to clerks in Post Offices, thereby excluding RMS clerks, and that Kulkarni was not an inspector eligible for the 19% quota. Consequently, the Tribunal’s order was erroneous, and the examination could not be reconducted. The appeals were allowed and the Tribunal’s order set aside.

Issues considered

Whether a clerk of the Railway Mail Service is eligible for promotion under the 19% quota for inspectors or the 6% quota for clerical line officials as per the 1994 amendment of the recruitment rules.
Whether the ratio applied in Sawan Ram Maira v. Union of India is applicable to the present facts.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 309 (proviso)

Subjects

Recruitment rulesPromotion by examinationRailway Mail ServicePostal Superintendent Group BEligibilityQuotaCentral Administrative TribunalSawan Ram Maira

Judgment

-~-

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC. A
v.
K.G. KULKARNI ETC.

MARCH 27, 1997

[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] B

Department of Posts, Postal Superintendent/Postmasters Group B
Recruitment Rules, 1987 : Rules, 2, 3, and 4 (As amended in
1994)-Schedule-Column 12.
c
Service Law-Railway Mail Servir;e--Rcspondent appointed as
Sorte1~1hereafter worked in different capacities-From Febiuary 1993 on-
wards working as Clerk in speed Post Section--Recrnitment of Postal Super-
intendent Group 'B'-Responde11t not given opportunity to appear in
examination-Tribunal set aside examination and directed appellant-
authorities to conduct examination afresh-Appeal against order of D
T1ibunal-Held in view of the amendment made in 1994, the line of officials
was specified, namely, Clerks working in the Post Offices or Divisional
Officers-171e clerks working in the RMS, thereby became ineligible to be
considered in 6% quota reserved for them--171e respondent did not apply
against 19% quota to which he was eligible-171e Tribunal, therefore, was not E
right in setting aside the examination already conducted--171e conduct of the
examination afresh was not legal.

Sawan Ram Maira v. Union of India & Ors., ·[1995] Supp. 3 SCC 620,
referred to.
F
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2670 of
1997 Etc. .

From the Judgment and Order dated 17.7.96 of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, Bangalore in O.A. No. 368 of 1996.
G
V.R. Reddy, Additional Solicitor General, K.K. Reddy, Hemant
Sharma, C.V.S. Rao, D.P. Reddy and G. Prabhakar with them for the
Appellants.

Sushi! Kr. Jain and A.P. Dhamija for the Respondents. H
385
386 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] 3 S.C.R.

A The following Order of the Court was delivered : (
Delay condoned.

Leave granted.

B These appeals by special leave arise from the order of the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, made on July 17, 1996 in OA
No. 368/96.

The facts in appeal arising out of SLP No. 23039 of 1996, are
sufficient for disposal of all the appeals. Therein, the admitted facts are
C that the respondent was appointed in the year 1967 as a Sorter in the
Railway Mail Service and has worked in different capacities since then at
different places. At the relevant time, viz., February 15, 1993 onwards he
was working as a Clerk in the Speed Post Section of the Bangalore G.P.O.
Recruitment to the post of Postal Superintendent/Postmasters, Group 'B'
was sought to be made. Since he was not given a opportunity to appear in
D the examination for selection to the said post, he filed OA in the Tribunal.
The Tribunal, following the decision of this Court in Sawan Ram Maira v.
Union of India & Ors., (1995] Supp. 3 SCC 620, has set aside the examina-
tion and directed the appellant-authorities to conduct examination afresh.
Thus, these appeals by special leave.
E It is seen that under the Schedule read with Rule 3 of the Rules in
operation, viz., the Department of Posts, Postal Superinten-
dent/Postmasters Group 'B' Recruitment Rules 1987, the method of
recruitment has been provided. In Column 12 thereof, it is stated thus :

F "By promotion :

(1) 94% from amongst officers holding the post of Inspector, Post
Offices or Inspector, Railway Mails".

Clause (2) thereof provides thus :
G 6% from amongst General line of Officials by means of the Depart-
ment Competitive Examination amongst officers belonging to
Higher Section Grade-I (Scale of Pay Rs. 2000-3200), Higher
Selection Grade-II (Scale of Pay Rs. 1640-2900) and Lower Selec-
tion Grade (Scale of Pay Rs. 1400-2300) within 5 years regular
H service in either or all the 3 cadres together".
U.O.l. v. K. G. KULKARNI 387

These Rules subsequently came to be amended in exercise of power A
under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution and became effective from
June 29, 1994. Therein, Rule 2 provides thus :

"In the Department of Posts, Postal Service Group 'B' Recruitment
Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to the 'said Rules'), in the
Preamble for the words "Postal Superintendent/Postmasters Group B
'B' the words and letter "Postal Service Group 'B' shall be sub-
stituted".

Rule 4 provides the method of selection thus :

"In the Schedule of the said Rules in column 12 for he existing C
entries the following entries shall be s,ubstituted viz., :

By promotion :

75% of the total posts shall be filled by promotion from amongst
Inspector of Post Offices Inspectors of Railway Mail Services (Pay D
Scale Rs. 1400-2300) with eight years' regular service in the grade".

Examinations for appointment by prQmotion are required to be
conducted, as indicated therein thus :

"Promotion by examination : E

(i) 19% of the total posts shall be filled on the basis of a department
competitive examination from among the Inspectors of Post Of-
fices and Inspectors Railway Mail Service (Pay Scale Rs. 1400-
2300) with five years' regular service in the grade.
F
(ii) 6% of the total posts shall be filed on the basis of the same
departmental examination from amongst clerical line officials
working in Posts Offices/Divisional Officers with five years' regular
service in the Lower Selection Grade and above."

The question, therefore, is : whether the respondent, working in the
G
Railway Mail Service, is covered under 19% quota as provided in the
column (i) or under 6% quota as provided in column (ii}? It is stated by
the appellants that the recruitment to the said post by promotion is to be
made from amongst the cadre of the Inspectors of Post Offices or Inspec-
tors of Railway Mail Service appointed in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300 H
388 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997) 3 S.C.R.

A with five years' regular service; however, the respondent did not apply for
the said post under 19% quota under which he would be covered. It is
t
further stated that he was not working in the Post Office of Divisional Post
Offices in the regular service, but was working in the Speed Post Section
in the said post office; and continued to be governed by the RMS Rules.
Under· these circumstances, he was not eligible to be considered for
B selection to the said post in question. It is contended that the Tribunal is
not right in holding that the ratio in the Sawan Ram Maira case applied to
the facts in this case. Therein, prior to the amendment of the Rules, it was
not specified that the candidates would be excluded from the list of
candidates eligible to apply for consideration of appointment by promotion
C by qualifying departmental competitive written examination. Paragraph of
the 1986 Rules clearly indicates that their eligibility for promotion is to be
considered according to the Rules. In pare 4, it is stated that "in the 1986
Rules, in the matter of recruitment, there was no reference to officials in
RMS. The 1987 Rules expressly include "Inspector, Railway Mails" in the
matter of promotion to the 94% quota. RMS has officials falling in General 1

D Line. There are no words of limitation in 1987 Rules in respect of General
Line Officials so as to e~clude General Line officials in the RMS." Thus,
it could be seen that in the absence of any specific provision making some
officials ineligible for being considered for promotion by written examina-
tion, this Court held that the candidate eligible for selection from the cadre
of Inspectors, Railway Mails is equally eligible to apply and to appear in
E · the Departmental competitive written examination.
However, in the present case, in view of the amendment made in
1994, the line of officials was specified, namely, Clerks working in the Post
Offices or Divisional Offices. The clerks working in the RMS, thereby,
became ineligible to be considered in 6% quota reserved for them. The
F respondent did not apply against 19% quota to which he was eligible. The
Tribunal, therefore, is not right in setting aside the examination already
conducted. The conduct of the examination afresh is not legal.

The appeals are accordingly, allowed. The order of the Tribunal is
set aside. No costs.
G
T.N.A. Appeals allowed.