Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose in the context of a departmental examination for appointment to the post of Accountant in the Post Office (PO) and Railway Mail Services (RMS). The appellant, Jahar Singh, was an employee of the Savings Bank Control Organization (SBCO), Uttar Pradesh Circle, under the Ministry of Communications, Department of Posts. In May 1992, while working in the Agra Head Post Office, he appeared in the examination held for appointment of Accountants in PO and RMS and was informed by letter dated November 30, 1992 that he had qualified for that post. However, he did not receive an appointment and instead received a copy of a letter dated July 23, 1993 from an Assistant Director General stating that since he was working in SBCO as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC), he was not eligible to appear for the PO and RMS Accountant examination and his candidature should be cancelled immediately. The appellant made a representation, which was rejected, and then filed an original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Allahabad Bench. He contended that though his initial appointment in 1983 was as LDC in SBCO, since August 1, 1991 he had been working there as Personal Assistant (PA) and the permission to appear in the examination was unqualified. The Tribunal found that the appellant was allowed to appear by mistake as he belonged to a separate cadre, but held that the respondents were not justified in cancelling his candidature as he was a bona fide candidate with no lapse on his part and no rules or circulars empowered such cancellation. The Tribunal set aside the order dated July 23, 1993 but did not grant the relief of appointment, on the ground that the appellant had become ineligible due to separation of cadres of Assistants of SBCO from those of PO and RMS. A review application was rejected. The Supreme Court examined the entire materials and found that the respondents had taken different and contradictory stands to forestall the appellant's claim. The initial letter of cancellation mentioned only LDC status, but later affidavits admitted the appellant was a Postal Assistant in SBCO. The additional ground of ineligibility based on Rule 273 of Postal Manual Vol. IV and a circular dated July 26, 1991 was also found without substance, as two other SBCO PAs were permitted to appear in the 1993 examination for the same post. The Court observed that Shri Kaushal, who filed affidavits on behalf of the respondents, had made patently incorrect and untrue statements. Consequently, the Supreme Court quashed the impugned order dated July 23, 1993 and directed the respondents to grant all benefits which the appellant would be entitled to consequent upon his having been declared successful in the examination held on May 22, 1996. The appeal was allowed with costs quantified at Rs. 5,000.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Eligibility for Departmental Examination - Cancellation of Candidature After Qualification - Postal Manual Vol. IV, Rule 273; Circular dated July 26, 1991 - Appellant, a Postal Assistant in SBCO, qualified in PO & RMS Accountant examination after being permitted to appear. Respondents cancelled candidature on ground of LDC status and later alleged SBCO cadre separation. Court found contradictory stands and no rule empowered cancellation of bona fide candidate's candidature. Held that cancellation order dated July 23, 1993 was unjustified and quashed, with direction to grant all consequential benefits (Paras 1-4). B) Service Law - Cadre Reorganisation and Interchangeability - Eligibility of SBCO Postal Assistants for PO & RMS Accountant - Postal Manual Vol. IV, Rule 273; Circular dated July 26, 1991 Para (viii) - Respondents contended that SBCO PAs had distinct identity and were not interchangeable with PO PAs, hence ineligible. Court noted two SBCO PAs were permitted to appear in 1993 and affidavit admitted appellant's PA status; therefore ground was without substance. Held that respondents could not rely on cadre separation to deny appointment after permission and success (Paras 1-4). C) Administrative Law - Tribunal's Power to Grant Consequential Relief - Remedy After Quashing Cancellation - Central Administrative Tribunal Procedure - Tribunal quashed cancellation but refused appointment; review rejected on ground that defective reasoning cannot be basis for review. Supreme Court held that once cancellation was quashed, appellant was entitled to consequential relief; allowed appeal with costs Rs. 5,000. Held that denial of consequential relief was improper (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether cancellation of appellant's candidature for PO & RMS Accountant examination after he qualified was valid; whether appellant, as a PA in SBCO, was eligible under Rule 273 and circular dated July 26, 1991 to be appointed as Accountant; whether Tribunal was justified in denying consequential relief after quashing cancellation.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed with costs quantified at Rs. 5,000. Order dated July 23, 1993 quashed; respondents directed to grant all benefits consequent upon appellant's having been declared successful in the examination held on May 22, 1996.
Law Points
- Doctrine of estoppel
- bona fide candidate
- cancellation of candidature contrary to rules
- Rule 273 Postal Manual Vol. IV eligibility
- SBCO separate cadre
- contradictory stands
- consequential relief
- departmental examination ineligibility
