The Union of India Vs Imrana Begum

The petitioners have put to challenge the impugned order dated 26.06.2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati in Original Application No.040/00169/2019, by which the writ petitioners have been directed to consider the case of the respondent for appointment as Assistant Accounts Officer against available vacancy and to promote her w.e.f the date of joining of the junior in the promoted post, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order.

¶28

The learned counsel for the writ petitioners submits that the respondent could not be promoted to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer, inasmuch as, the Recruitment Rules required the candidate to have 9 (nine) years of qualifying service in Level-4, i.e. the feeder post of Postal Assistant which was being held by the respondent. The respondent had been allowed to participate

¶29

Page No.# 3/8

¶30

in the examination/selection process for the post of Assistant Accounts Officer, despite not having the nine years qualifying service. However, even though the respondent had passed the examination, the respondent could not be promoted due to the respondent not having the qualifying service.

¶31

The counsel for the respondent, on the other hand submits that in terms of the Note to Column-11 of the Schedule provided in “The Indian Posts & Telecommunications Accounts & Finance Service (IP&TAFS) Group “B” (Accounts Officers & Assistant Accounts Officers) Recruitment Rules, 2018” (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”), a senior can be considered for promotion when his juniors, who have the qualifying or eligibility service are considered for promotion. The only requirement is that the seniors should have completed more than half of such qualifying or eligibility service, or 2 years, whichever is less. Further, they should have successfully completed their probation period for promotion to the next higher Grade along with their juniors who had already completed such qualifying or eligibility service.

¶32

The learned counsel for the respondent submits that though at first glance it appears that a junior cannot have a longer length of qualifying or eligibility service than his seniors, Rule 38 of the Posts and Telegraphs Manual, Volume IV, Chapter-I, hereinafter referred to as the “Manual” shows that a junior can have a longer length of qualifying or eligibility service than his seniors in certain situations. He submits that Assam is made up of 11 Circles/Divisions. When a person is transferred from one Division to another on own request, though the transferred person would become junior to those persons already serving in the transferred Circle/Division. He submits that one Sri Prabitra Saharia had initially

¶33

Page No.# 4/8

¶34

joined as a Postal Assistant in Guwahati Division on 27.11.2006. The respondent, on the other hand had joined the Darrang Circle/Division as Postal Assistant on 29.12.2009. However, when Sri Prabitra Saharia was transferred to Darrang Circle/Division on own request, in terms of Rule 38 of the “Manual”, his seniority as Postal Assistant had to be counted from the date he joined the new Division, wherein he became junior to the present respondent. As Sri Prabitra Saharia had the eligibility criteria/qualifying service of 9 years for participating in the examination/selection process for the post of Assistant Accounts Officer, in terms of the Notification dated 19.04.2018 for recruitment to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer by way of Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE), the respondent also became qualified to participate in the selection process in terms of the Note to Column 11 of the Schedule to the Rules. He accordingly submits that though Shri Pabitra Saharia had failed the examination, the respondent had passed the said examination and as such, there was no infirmity in the direction of the learned Tribunal to promote the respondent to a vacant post of Assistant Accounts Officer.

¶35

6. Rule 38 of the Transfers and Posting-General Rules states as follows :

¶36

“38. Transfer at one’s own request.

¶37

(1) Transfers of officials when desired for their own convenience should not be discouraged if they can be made without injury to the rights of others. However, as a general rule, an official should not be transferred from one unit to another, either within the same Circle, or to another Circle unless he is permanent. As it is not possible to accommodate an official borne on one gradation list into another gradation list without injury to the other members in that gradation list such transfers should not ordinarily be allowed except by way of mutual exchange. Transfers by way of mutual exchange, if in them-selves inherently unobjectionable,

¶38

Page No.# 5/8

¶39

should be allowed, but in order to safeguard the rights of men borne in the gradation lists of both the offices, the official brought in should take the place, in the new gradation list; that would have been assigned to him had he been originally recruited in that unit or the place vacated by the official with whom he exchanges appointment, whichever is the lower.

¶40

Note -Transfer of officials, who are not permanent in the grade, may, in deserving cases, be permitted with the personal approval of the Head of Circle/Administrative Office

¶41

(2) When an official is transferred at his own request but without arranging for mutual exchange, he will rank junior in the gradation list of the new unit to all officials of that unit on the date on which the transfer order issued, including also all persons who have been approved for appointment to that grade as on that date,

¶42

(3) If the old and the new unit form parts of a wider unit for the purpose of promotion to a higher cadre, the transferee (whether by mutual exchange or otherwise) will retain his original seniority in the gradation list of the wider unit.

¶43

The Note to Column 11 of the Schedule to the Rules states as follows :’

¶44

“ Note : Where juniors who have completed their qualifying or eligibility service are being considered for promotion, their seniors would also be considered provided they are not short of the requisite qualifying or eligibility service by more than half of such qualifying or eligibility service, or two years, whichever is less, and have successfully completed their probation period for promotion to the next higher grade along with their juniors who have already completed such qualifying or eligibility service.”

¶45

The guidelines to check/scrutinize and prepare a tentative/provisional List regarding the candidates who can take part in the LDCE, for filling up the vacant posts of Assistant Accounts Officer, 2018, in terms of the Notification dated

¶46

Page No.# 6/8

¶47

19.04.2018 has been set out in the Communication No.301(05)/2018/PA Admn.III/1363 to 1420 dated 18.07.2018 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Communication, Department of Posts, Postal Accounts Wing, Dak Bhavan, New Delhi, which states at paragraph-12 as follows :

¶48

“12. It is assumed that maximum no. of candidates are eligible as per their own service records. Hence, for ineligible candidates because of not fulfilling length of service criteria, they may be contacted on telephone available in Annexure 'C' prepared by respective SNOs and may be asked to clarify/justify their eligibility for AAO LDCE 2018 under relevant clause of Recruitment Rules in time bound manner. This contacting on telephone may be used only as a last resort. Based on the clarifications, Screening Committee may seek additional records from respective DDOs and check/scrutnize it accordingly. It is reiterated that no documents should be sought/called/taken from the candidates.

¶49

For this purpose, all seniors for whom Note below point 2 Col. 11 of RRs is/might be applicable may be considered eligible whether their eligible juniors (as per the same gradation list) by virtue of length of service as prescribed and graduate in event of candidate being other than JA/SA-

¶50

a) applied for examination or not or

¶51

b) if applied got rejected for incomplete form or

¶52

c) didn't appear after being issued roll no. or

¶53

d) didn't appear in all 6 papers.”

¶54

The Gradation List of Postal Assistants as on 04.09.2018 made by the Superintendant of Post Offices, Darrang Division, Tezpur on 04.09.2018 shows the respondent’s (who is at Sl. No.91) date of entry as Postal Assistant on 29.12.2009. Shri Pabitra Saharia, who was allowed to take part in the LDCE for

¶55

Page No.# 7/8

¶56

the post of Assistant Accounts Officer along with the respondent, is at Sl. No.151 and his date of entry as Personnel Accounts officer has been shown to be 27.11.2006.

¶57

The above clearly shows that despite Shri Pabitra Saharia having joined the post of Postal Assistant 3 years prior to the entry of the respondent as Postal Assistant, Shri Pabitra Saharia was made junior to the respondent on account of Rule 38 of the Manual.

¶58

The above Gradation List and the facts enumerated therein show that in the Darrang Division, Shri Pabitra Saharia is junior to the respondent, though he had joined the post of Postal Assistant earlier. However, in view of Rule 38 of the Manual and the Note to Column 11 of the Schedule to the Rules, the respondent has the eligibility criteria of service for participating in the LDCE, as she has more than half of the required 9 years of qualifying/eligibility service. As such, when the respondent has the qualifying/eligibility service period for taking part in the selection process, the respondent would have to be promoted as per law, as she had passed the said examination.

¶59

In view the reasons stated above, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal.

¶60

13. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶61

JUDGE JUDGE

¶62

Page No.# 8/8

¶63

Comparing Assistant

The Union of India v. Imrana Begum

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Union of India v. Imrana Begum

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Xxxxxxxx Vs Xxxxxxxx

Sankar Narayan Nandi Vs the State of Assam

Suraj Gowala and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Dilip Kumar Rabha Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

The State of Assam and Ors. Vs Kuldeep Tassa

The Director of Medical Education, Assam and Anr. Vs Kuldeep Tassa and 4 Ors.