The Superintendent Of Post Offices vs Hanuman Giri

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6124­6125 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos.175­176 of 2019)

The Superintendent of Post Offices .…Appellant(s) & Ors.

Versus

Hanuman Giri ….Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

A.S. Bopanna,J.

Leave granted.

2. The appellants herein are assailing the order dated

19.07.2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature at

Allahabad in Writ A.No.9549/2011. By the said order the

High Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the

Signature Not Verified appellants herein. The Review filed by the appellants was Digitally signed by MADHU BALA

also dismissed through the subsequent order dated Date: 2019.08.06 17:23:36 IST Reason:

21.08.2017. In that view, the order dated 05.10.2010

Page 1 of 15 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad

Bench, Allahabad, (“CAT” for short) in O.A.No.888/2009

as also the Order dated 17.01.2011 passed by the CAT in

Review Application No.77/2010 stands approved by the

High Court. It is in that view, the appellants are before

this Court assailing the above stated orders in these

appeals.

3. The brief facts which are to be noted limited for

consideration of these appeals are as hereunder.

4. The second appellant herein, namely, the Post

Master General, Kanpur Region, Kanpur, U.P. issued a

Notification dated 24.05.1991 inviting applications from

Extra Departmental Delivery Agents (“Delivery Agents” for

short) to appear in the examination to be considered for

promotion to the post of Postman. The respondent herein

and the other similarly placed Delivery Agents had

appeared in the examination held on 18.08.1991.

Pursuant to such Notification, the Chief Post Master

General, U.P. Circle at Lucknow issued an order dated

27.07.1992 informing the Director, Postal Services,

Page 2 of 15 Kanpur that the examination held on 18.08.1991 in

Banda, Fatehpur and Fatehgarh Division be cancelled.

Though the respondent herein did not assail the same,

certain other Delivery Agents including one Shri

Jagmohan Yadav, in all five applicants, challenged the

said order dated 27.06.1992 cancelling the examination

held for promotion, by approaching the CAT in O.A.

No.546/1992. The said O.A.No.546/1992 was disposed

of on 05.02.1997 wherein the CAT set aside the direction

issued by the Chief Post Master General dated

27.07.1992 and directed to publish the result of all

successful candidates to be promoted against 17

vacancies available in Kanpur Head Post Offices as per

Rules. The Review Application bearing No.33/1997 filed

by the appellants herein was dismissed through the order

dated 31.07.2000. Since the order of CAT had not been

complied with, the said Shri Jagmohan Yadav and four

others filed Contempt Application bearing No.135/2002

before the CAT. The non­consideration of the Contempt

Application in an appropriate manner by the CAT had led

to the filing of the Civil Misc.Writ Petition No.12990/2004

Page 3 of 15 before the High Court, by the said Shri Jagmohan Yadav

and others. The said Writ Petition was allowed and the

matter was remitted to the CAT for consideration afresh

and in the said process the said Shri Jagmohan Yadav

was promoted as a Postman.

5. The genesis of the case being such, the respondent

herein also having appeared in the examination held on

18.08.1991 sought to take the benefit of the direction

issued by the CAT in O.A.No.546/1992 though he was

not a party therein. Accordingly he filed a representation

dated 02.07.2007 and claimed for promotion as a

Postman. The appellants herein did not consider the

same favourably but intimated him that he was not an

applicant in O.A.No.546/1992 and in that view the result

in the examination held for promotion was not declared.

The respondent, however, sought and obtained details of

his result through an application made under the Right

to Information Act, 2005 and on learning that he had

obtained 127.5 marks, at the outset was of the

impression that the said Shri Jagmohan Yadav who had

Page 4 of 15 been promoted was less meritorious though in fact he

had secured 137 marks out of 150 marks. It was further

the case of the respondent that through the said marks

since he was placed at Serial No.12 in the merit list and

there were 17 vacancies in Kanpur Head Post Office he

was entitled. Hence he sought for promotion as Postman

since according to him his rank in the merit list was

within the number of vacancies. The said claim of the

respondent herein was repudiated by the appellants

herein which resulted in respondent herein approaching

the CAT in O.A. No.888/2009.

6. In the said proceedings the appellants herein

opposed the claim of respondent herein. The CAT by

adverting to the rival contentions, through its order dated

05.10.2010, took note of the scope of the order passed in

O.A.No.546/1992 (relating to Shri Jagmohan Yadav and

others) based on which the respondent herein was

making a claim. Since the claim of respondent herein had

been declined by the appellants on the ground that he

was not the applicant in O.A.No.546/1992, the CAT by

Page 5 of 15 order dated 05.02.1997 had held that the order dated

27.07.1992 passed by the Chief Post Master General,

U.P. Circle for cancellation of the examination held in

Banda, Fatehpur and Fathegarh Division had been

quashed in its entirety. Hence, in that case since the

appellants herein were directed to declare the result of

the examination and give appointment to the successful

candidates, the CAT was of the opinion that the results

of all candidates who appeared for the examination

including that of the respondent herein ought to have

been announced and the promotions as Postman to the

17 vacancies in Kanpur Head Post Offices was required to

be made. In that view, on noticing that the same had not

been done by the appellant, the CAT directed

consideration of the case of the respondent herein. The

Review filed by the appellants herein against such order

was also dismissed. It is also to be noted that one of the

reasons which was also taken into consideration by the

CAT to accept the claim of the respondent herein was

that he claimed to have secured more marks than Shri

Page 6 of 15 Jagmohan Yadav who had secured the promotion in the

very same process that was undertaken.

7. The High Court while taking note of the

contentions put forth in the writ petition has adverted to

the very nature of the consideration made by the CAT as

taken note hereinabove and has approved the order

passed by the CAT. The Review Petition filed by the

appellants herein though was dismissed, one aspect of

the matter which got highlighted and clarified therein is

that the claim as put forth by the respondent that he was

more meritorious than Shri Jagmohan Yadav was not

the correct position inasmuch as the said Shri

Jagamohan Yadav had obtained 137 marks as against

127.5 marks obtained by the respondent herein.

However, the High Court was of the opinion that even if

that be the position, the basic consideration as made by

the CAT and taken note by it in its order does not get

altered. In that view the point that would remain for

consideration herein is, as to whether the claim of the

respondent herein that he was entitled to be promoted as

Page 7 of 15 he was at Serial No.12 in the merit list and as such he

would be one among the Delivery Agents to be promoted

against the vacancy of 17 posts of Postman is sustainable

?

8. We have extensively heard Shri Vikramjit Banerjee

learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the

appellants, Shri S.D. Singh learned counsel for the

respondent and perused the appeal papers including the

additional documents brought on record along with an

application. We have also taken note of the objections

raised by the learned counsel for the respondent

contending that the documents sought to be relied upon

in the instant proceedings is against the admitted factual

position. However, in a matter of the present nature

where the records are maintained by the employer,

unless the authenticity of the said document is in doubt,

there would be no impediment for this Court to take note

of the documents which are brought on record in an

appropriate manner.

Page 8 of 15

9. On the above basis we proceed to examine the

issue by taking note of all relevant material. In that

regard the basic document to be taken note is the

Notification dated 24.05.1991 through which the process

for promotion was set in motion. The same was

addressed to all Postmasters/Sub Post Masters/ Branch

Post Masters; to the Assistant Superintendent Post

Offices, Hamirpur and All Sub Divisional Inspectors in

Banda Division. On informing about the examination to

be held on 18.08.1991 it was further indicated that there

is no vacancy in Postman Cadre in this Division (which is

a reference to Banda Division as the said Notification is

issued from Banda Division). Hence qualified candidates

will have to go to other Divisions on availability of

vacancy. It further states that no candidate will be

posted in Banda Division in any circumstance. In our

view the said instructions as contained in the Notification

dated 24.05.1991 is to be kept in perspective while

examining the other aspects of the matter since from the

rival contentions it assumes significance and would be

relevant to take note so as to conclude whether the

Page 9 of 15 respondent herein should be promoted based on his rank

in the merit list at Serial No.12 relating to Banda Division

or as to whether the vacancy position is to be taken note

in the background of the common merit list relating to

the Delivery Agents of all Divisions against the 17

vacancies in Kanpur Head Post Offices. Though the

learned counsel for the respondent seeks to contend that

the position of the respondent being at Serial No.12 has

been admitted in all earlier proceedings and the

appellants cannot be allowed to resile from the said

position, it would be necessary to examine as to whether

the merit of the respondent at Serial No.12 relates to the

common merit list of all divisions or as to whether he

was at Serial No.12 of the merit list limited to Banda

Division. Such consideration, in our view, is necessary

as it is the only issue which is germane for the purpose of

decision making herein.

10. In that background, as already taken note by us

the genesis of the case being a consideration made in

Page 10 of 15 O.A.No.546/1992 it would be necessary to take note of

the nature of consideration made therein. In the said

proceedings, the applicants therein namely, Shri

Jagmohan Yadav and others while assailing the action of

appellants herein had contended that the candidates of

Banda Division could be posted against the unfilled

vacancies of Kanpur Head Post Offices and Kanpur City

Postal Division. It is no doubt true that the appellants

herein in order to oppose the said contention had stated

in the said proceedings that the 17 left over vacancies of

Kanpur Head Post Offices which is Group­A Post Office

are to be filled from Local Postal Division as per the

extant rules and cannot be filled by the staff of other

Divisions. The conclusion reached by the CAT after

taking note of the rules is that there was no averment by

the respondent that those 17 vacancies of Kanpur Head

Post Offices have been filled from the other Local

Divisions or any other Division. By an implication it was

noted that no more selected staff was available for filling

up the balance 17 vacancies from Delivery Agents of

Kanpur Local Postal Division. In that circumstance, it

Page 11 of 15 was held that on declaration of the result the staff of

Banda Division can also be eligible to be considered for

17 vacancies of Kanpur Head Post Offices as per Rules.

It was, therefore, held therein that the stand taken by the

appellants herein to the effect that vacancies of Kanpur

Head Post Offices cannot be filled by the staff of other

Divisions than those located at Kanpur is not tenable. In

that circumstance, it was directed that the results of

other candidates from all Divisions is to be declared and

the 17 posts are to be filled up. It was precisely held as

hereunder:

“In the present case as we have held earlier, 17 vacancies of Kanpur Head Post Offices were left unfilled and the same should have been filled by successful staff of Banda Division or any other Division as applicable.”

11. Therefore, the basis on which the consideration

was made subsequent thereto including promotion of

Shri Jagmohan Yadav, though belatedly, was based on

Page 12 of 15 the marks obtained in the merit list. On that aspect it is

to be taken note that though the merit list of Fatehpur

Division, Fatehgarh Division and Banda Division are

separately maintained, a common merit list of Delivery

Agents in respect of Kanpur Region which includes

Fatehpur Division, Fatehgarh Division and Banda

Division relating to the examinations conducted in the

year 1991 was also maintained. As noticed, the very

Notification dated 24.05.1991 indicates that though the

examinations are held the qualified candidates will have

to go to other Divisions on availability of vacancy as there

was no vacancy of Postman in Banda Division. If that be

the position in respect of the unfilled 17 vacancies of

Kanpur Head Post Offices, the persons in order of merit

from all Divisions including Banda Division wherein the

respondent was working would be entitled to be

considered based on common merit list.

12. In that situation though in the merit list of Banda

Division Shri Jagmohan Yadav was at Serial No.1 and the

Page 13 of 15 respondent herein was at Serial No.12, in the common

merit list Shri Jagmohan Yadav was at Serial No.2 while

the respondent herein was at Serial No.43. The total

marks obtained by the candidates would indicate that the

person at Serial No.17 in the said common merit list had

obtained 131 marks and after the said candidate there

are several other candidates who had obtained marks up

to 128, after which the respondent having obtained 127.5

is at Serial No.43. In such situation ignoring the others,

the respondent herein in any event cannot be promoted.

Hence the consideration made by the CAT in favour of the

respondent herein would not be justified. Though

ultimately in the Review Petition before the High Court

the fact that the respondent had not secured more

marks than Shri Jagmohan Yadav was taken note and

was clarified that even otherwise the direction issued was

appropriate, we find that despite all the factors as noticed

above it appears that what weighed in the mind of the

CAT in O.A.No.888/2009 was a wrong assumption of the

respondent being more meritorious than the candidate

who was granted benefit due to the earlier orders.

Page 14 of 15

13. If that be the position, the orders impugned herein

are not sustainable. Therefore, the order dated

17.01.2011 passed in O.A.No.888/2009 and the order

dated 17.01.2011 passed in Review Application

No.77/2010 by the CAT as also the order dated

19.07.2013 passed in Writ Appeal No.9549/2011 and the

order dated 21.08.2017 passed in Review Petition

No.285160/2013 by the High Court of Judicature at

Allahabad are set aside.

14. Accordingly, the instant appeals are allowed with

no order as to costs. All pending applications also stand

disposed of.

……………………….J. (R. BANUMATHI)

……………………….J. (A.S. BOPANNA) New Delhi, August 06, 2019

Page 15 of 15