BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. versus R. SANTHAKUMARI VELUSAMY & ORS.

Citation: [2011] 14 S.C.R. 502 · Decided: 06-09-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 502 
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. 
v. 
R. SANTHAKUMARI VELUSAMY & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 5286-87 of 2005) 
SEPTEMBER 6, 2011 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.] 
Service Law - Upgradation - Applicability of reservation 
provisions - Biennial Cadre Review (BCR) Scheme - Nature 
C of - Held: As upgradation involves neither appointment nor 
promotion, it will not attract reservation - Upgradation involves 
mere conferment of financial benefits by providing a higher 
scale of pay - If there is mere upgradation of posts, as 
contrasted from promotion, reservation provisions would not 
D apply - However, where the upgradation does not involve 
appointment to a different or higher post, but is as a result of 
a promotional process involving selection, then the principles 
of reservation are attracted - In the instant case, the BCR 
scheme in question was an upgradation scheme to give relief 
E against stagnation - It did not involve creation of any new 
posts - It did not involve advancement to a higher post - It 
did not involve any process of selection for conferment of the 
benefit of higher pay-scale - The upgradation was given to 
the senior most 10% of BCR scale employees in Grade Ill 
F strictly as per seniority - The BCR scheme was a scheme for 
upgradation simplicitor without involving any creation of 
additional posts or any process of selection for extending the 
benefit - Such a scheme of upgradation did not invite the 
rules of reservation - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 
G 16(4) and 16(4A). 
H 
Service Law -
Promotion and upgradation -
Distinguished - Principles relating to applicability of rules of 
reservation - Discussed. 
502 
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. v. R. SANTHAKUMARI 
503 
VELUSAMY 
The appellant is the successor of the Department of A 
· Telecommunications, Ministry of Communications, and 
Government of India (for short 'government' or 'telecom 
department'). There were four grades of employees of 
telecom departments. Promotions from one grade to a 
higher grade were on the basis of seniority/departmental 
8 
examination. The telecom department introduced an 'One 
Time-Bound Promotion' scheme ('OTBP scheme') in the 
year 1983-84 under which regular employees who had 
completed 16 years of service in a grade, were placed in 
the next higher grade. After some years, the employees 
C 
unions demanded a second time-bound promotion on 
completion of 26 years of service in the basic· grade, as 
Group C and Group D cadres were only entitled to one-
time bound promotion. The government decided that a 
second time bound promotion was not feasible. 
However, to provide relief from stagnation in the grade, 
D 
the government decided to have a Biennial Cadre Review 
('BCR') under which a specified percentage of posts 
could be upgraded on the basis of functional justification. 
The BCR scheme was accordingly introduced vide 
E 
Circular dated 16.10.1990. It was made applicable to those 
cadres in Group C and Group D, for which one-time 
bound promotion scheme on completion of 16 years of 
service in the basic grade was in force. Under the said 
scheme, employees who were in regular service as on 
F 
1.1.1990 and had completed 26 years of satisfactory 
service in the basic cadres, were to be screened by a duly 
constituted Committee to assess their performance and 
determine their suitability for advancement and if they 
were found suitable, to be upgraded in the higher scale. 
G 
The upgradation was restricted to 10% of the posts in 
Grade Ill. 
The circular of the telecom department dated 1.3.1996 
applying rules of reservations to promotions to Grade IV 
H 
504 ·SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A under BCR was challenged by the All India Non SC/ST 
Telecom Employees Association on the ground that 
principles of reservation would not apply for upgradation 
of existing posts which did not carry any change in 
duties and responsibilities. The Central Administrative 
8 Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench held that the department 
could not apply reservation rules while upgrading the 
posts under the BCR scheme and directed the 
department to take appropriate action for effecting 
promotions to the upgraded posts without applying the 
C reservation roster. The writ petition filed by the 
government challenging the said order of the Tribunal 
(Ahmedabad Bench) was dismissed by the Gujarat High 
Court. In view of the said decision, the Government 
issued an order da

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.