Dismissed

M. Subramanyam v. The Secretary (Rep Union of India)

Telangana HC25 Aug 2014WP/33648/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the cut-off date fixed for Postal Service Group-B promotion. Upholding the Central Administrative Tribunal's order, the Court held that while executive instructions can supplement silent Rules, the petitioners failed to complete the mandatory five years of service as per the 2008 cut-off date.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.

M. Subramanyam Vs The Secretary (Rep Union… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.33648 OF 2011

¶4

ORDER:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu)

¶5

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed to call for the records relating to the order, dated 27.06.2011, in Original Application No.418 of 2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) and quash the same and consequently, declare the cut-off date as 01.01.2008 imposed by the respondents in Notification, dated 23.02.2010, for promotion to the post of Postal Service, as arbitrary and illegal and petitioners are entitled to appear for examination held on 3^rd and 4^th May, 2010 with all consequential benefits of seniority and pay fixation on par with those, who are promoted in pursuance of the results declared.

¶6

2. Petitioners herein and another filed the aforesaid Original Application challenging the notification, dated 23.02.2010, issued by respondent No.5 notifying the departmental examination of Postal Service Group-B scheduled to be held on 3^rd and 4^th May, 2010 fixing the cut-off date for the eligibility criteria as 01.01.2008 and fixing the service eligibility of completion of five years of service as on 01.01.2008 with retrospective effect.

¶7

3. The Tribunal, upon considering the material on record, dismissed the Original Application.

¶8

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that putting cut-off date as 01.01.2008 in the notification is illegal; that the Department of Posts, Postal Superintendent/Postmasters Group ‘B’ Recruitment

¶9

Rules, 1987 (for short, ‘the Rules’), came into force with effect from 11.03.1998; that no cut-off date was mentioned in the said Rules; that as the petitioners have completed five years of service in the Lower Selection Grade, they are qualified to the post of Postal Service, the Tribunal ought to have directed the official respondents to consider the case of the petitioners and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order.

¶10

5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the respondents contended that in terms of the Rules, Department of Posts-India issued a letter on 02.011.1999 fixing the cut-off date for eligibility service for consideration of the applications; that fixing eligibility will be 1^st January of the year immediately preceding the vacancy year of the examination; that in pursuance of the said letter, cut-off date was mentioned as 01.01.2008 in the notification; that the Tribunal, after considering all these aspects, passed the impugned order and that order needs no interference by this Court.

¶11

6. It is not in dispute that petitioners were promoted to Lower Selection Grade (LGS) on 04.12.2004 and 07.03.2004. If the cut-off date is to be taken into consideration as 01.01.2008 as mentioned in the notification, petitioners have not completed five years of service as per the Rules. The relevant Rule of the said Rules reads as follows:

¶12

“6% from amongst General Line of Officials by means of a Departmental Competitive Examination amongst Officers belonging to Higher Selection Grade-I (scale of pay Rs.2000-3200), Higher Selection Grade II (Scale of pay Rs.1640-2900) and Lower Selection Grade (scale of pay Rs.1400-2300) with 5 years regular service in either or all the 3 cadres together.”

¶13

The above Rule mandates that for getting promotion to Postal Service Group-B, one must have completed five years of service in feeder category as on the cut-off date.

¶14

7. As seen from the notification, dated 23.02.2010, the Department has given the cut-off date as 01.01.2008. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, such cut-off date is not provided in the Rules and giving cut-off date in the notification is illegal. But, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, because the Department of Posts-India, Office of the Chief Postmaster General, Andhra Pradesh Circle, Hyderabad No.RE/452/PSS GR.B. Examination/Rlgs, issued a letter on 02.11.1999 describing the procedure as to how the cut-off date has to be mentioned. Operative portion of the said letter reads as follows:

¶15

“It is further clarified for kind attention that the cut-off date for determining eligibility will be 1^ST JANUARY OF THE YEAR IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE VACANCY YEAR OF THE EXAMINATION of PS Gr.B Cadre or the relevant year, from vacancy year 2000-2001 onwards, irrespective of the date of conducting/holding of such examination. For example 01.01.2000 will be the crucial date to determine eligibility service for the examination for the vacancies for the financial year 2000-2001.”

¶16

8. It is the specific case of the Department that the vacancies were notified for the financial year 2008-2009 fixing the cut-off date as 01.01.2008. Petitioners have not challenged the Letter, dated 02.11.1999, issued by the Department of Posts-India.

¶17

9. There cannot be any dispute that when a Rule is silent with regard to eligibility service for consideration of the applications, executive instructions can supplement the same. But, the said executive instructions cannot contradict the Rules. When there is contradiction in the Rules, the executive instructions can be used as guidance by the authorities in fixing the cut-off date. If that is taken into

¶18

consideration, the petitioners have not completed five years of service as contemplated in the Rules. Therefore, the Tribunal, after considering all these aspects, rightly dismissed the Original Application and that order needs no interference by this Court.

¶19

10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶20

_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU ______________ JUSTICE ANIS

¶21

AUGUST 25, 2014 YVL

¶22

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND

¶23

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶24

WRIT PETITION NO.33648 OF 2011

¶25

Date: 25.08.2014

¶26

YVL

M. Subramanyam v. The Secretary (Rep Union of India)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Subramanyam v. The Secretary (Rep Union of India)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Srr Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd., Vs G.S. Rama Rao

Sri M.Mahender Reddy Vs Sri M.Yadi Reddy

M/s. Asian Securities and Estates Ltd., Vs Mr. Mohammed Ajarudin

P.N.S. Mahalakshmi Vs Sri K.v.S.Rajan

The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Vs Smt. Kaki Venkata Lakshmi Tanuja

T.Narsimha Reddy Vs The Regional Joint Director of School Education