LexM. JAGDISH VYAS AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
· ~ ....
A
(
8
\
[2010] 3 S.C.R. 1086
M. JAGDISH VYAS AND ORS.
V.
, .
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..
(Civi_l Appeal Nos.4345-4346 of 2007)
. .-- .
~
MA~CH 29, 2010
[8.' s'UDERSHAN REDDY AND SURINDER SINGH
NIJJAR, JJ.]
Service law:
c ·-
Deputation 7" Past of JAO in DoT~ Filling up of vacant :-
post of JAO by ·deputation and by appointment/promotion of
\
'
-
.
.
.
departmental candidates_- Deputationists to appear in two
' '·
papers of JAO Par{)/ examination -
The Jetter dated
0 · 24.6.2002 issued by DoTprescnbing minimum marks to be
_ .. _ obtained by deputationists in the two papers - In the letter
. dated. 23. 7.2002, the minir;wm prescribed percentage_ o(
marks relaxed .- The letter stated that the result of-
,. deputation_ists would be declared separately- Claim of paritY .
·E by dejJUtationists with the· departmental candidates, for
relaxation of minimum · qualifying marks in the examination
- Held: The letter dated 23.7.2002 related only to· declaration .
of result of departmental candidates - Deputationists to be.
absorbed orf the posts of JAOs and the departmental
employees seeking appointment by way of promotion on the
F posts of JAOs who were required to take the JAO Examination,
constituted two separate and distinct class - The classification
had a clear nexus with the objects sought to lie achieved, i.e.,
to fill in as many vacant posts from the departmental
candidates working on the lower ranks provided they reached
G bare minimum qualifying standards in the JAO, Part-If
Examination - Moreover, result of deputationists was declared
separately. which also indicated thflt the. departmental
candidates were segregated from the deputationists- Hence,
the criteria for declaration of results for the departmental.
H
1086
-~
:
M. JAGDISH VYAS AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA 1087
AND ORS.
-·
candidates was different from the deputationists - DoT was
A
entitled to insist on recruiting the best from among the
_deputationists - Hence, the higher criteria foi-deputationists
cannot be said to be arbitrary_ or-discriminatory - Such
classification-is permissible under Article-s~ 14 and 16-
Constitution of India, ·1950- Articles 14 and 16. ' ·
B
~ .... ·
.
The Department of Telecommunication (DoT) was
following a practice of filling the vacant post of Junior
Accounts Officer (JAOs) by deputing employees of the
Department of posts who were qualified for the posts of
JAOs after conducting an examination. The departmental C
candidates were also eligible for appointment/promotion
to the post of JAO provided they were prepared to pass
Part I and Part II examination held for the post of JAOs.
As per the Scheme, the examination was to be ~onducted
simultaneously with the JAO telecom Part II examination
D
and would be only for paper VII and Paper VIII for
deputationists. ·
·
Appellants were permanent employees of the Postal
Department. They had already qualified the Part·l and Part
E
II· examination of JAO in the Postal Department. They
appeared in the examination in two papers on 18.10.2000.
On the same day, the examination was held for the
departmental candidates for the post o: .::lAOs. The
communication dated 24.6.2002 was issued by DoT
F
wherein the minimum marks to be obtained in Paper VII
and VIII of JAO_part II examination were 45% in aggregate
and 40% in each paper •.. ..
The result of the JAO, Part-11 Examination held in
December 2000 was declared through letter dated G
23. 7.2002. In that letter, the minimum prescribed
percentage of marks was relaxed. The letter also
mentioned that the General candidates were required to
secure 33% in each subject and 35% in aggregate, 6
grace marks were provided in any one subject. The letter H I
i
1088
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010} 3 S.C.R.
J
also mentioned that the names of the candidates were
A
hot arranged in the order of. merit The letter stated that
the result of de'p~utationist candidates would be declared
separately. Thereafter, t_he results of deputationist
B
candidates were declared on 29.08.2002. The appellants
who would .have be(m' declared successful under the
criteria contained in the Letter dated 23.07.2002 were not
induded in the .list of successful ·candidates. ·
· ;· _·
Aggrieved appellants filed ·application before CAT
.
.
I
"
c which was allowed with directions to employer to include
.....
the names of appellants. in the list of· successful
......
candidates aExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.