UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus RAJ KUMAR GUPTA AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1000 · Decided: 23-03-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
UNION Of INDIA AND ORS. 
v. 
RAJ KUMAR GUPTA AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
. MARCH 23, 1995 
B 
(K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.) 
Service law 
Indian Railways Establishment Manual-Para 167-Appendix-
C II-Para 4(a). 
Railway Board's Circular dated 24.6.1986-Accounts Clerk Grade-
l-Recruitment of-Condition of passing test during probation for confinna-
tion-Failure to pass test within the prescribed time-Held liable to be 
discharged from service-Direction issued to give another chance-Circular 
D held not in conflict with Para 167. 
· 
The respondents were selected and appointed as Accounts Clerks 
Grade-I in the Northern Railway. In terms of Para 167 of Indian Railways 
Establishment Manual (IREM), during probation they were required to 
pass the test prescribed in Appendix-II and in para 4(a) therein. The 
E . letters of appointment clearly indicated that they were required to pass the 
test within the period of probation for confirmation and in the event of 
their failure to pass the prescribed examination within the time prescribed 
under the relevant para of IREM and the Railway Board's Circular dated 
24.6.1986 they were liable to be discharged. On respondents' failure to pass 
F 
the prescribed test their services were terminated. They challenged their 
termination before the Tribunal which held that the Circular dated 24.6.86 
was in conflict with Para 167 of IREM and consequently quashed the 
termination orders. 
In appeals to this Court on the question whether Railway Board's 
G Circular dated 24.6.86 was in conflict with Para 167 of IREM : 
Allowing the appeals, this Court. 
HELD : 1. The ~ilway Board's circular dated 24.6.86 is not in 
conflict with para 167 of Indian Railways Establishment Manual. It is not 
H in supersession but to supplement the yawning gaps therein. It tvisages 
.1000 
' 
f 
I 
_.(-
f 
,) 
U.O.I. v. R.K. GUPTA 
1001 
that direct recruit Accounts Clerks Grade-I are eligible for two chances to A 
pass the examinations prescribed in Appendix-II within a period of three 
years from the date of entering into service. Failure to qualify in the 
examination within the two attempts render them ineligible for confirma-
tion. Thereby, they become liable to be discharged from service. It is true 
that Appendix-II in para 4(a) as a general rule gives three normal chances B 
to the railway servants to take the examinations and exceptions have been 
provided giving power to the Financial Adviser and Chief Accounts Officer 
to permit a candidate to take the examination for the fourth time and in 
deserving cases and in very exceptional circumstances the General 
-~ 
Manager is given discretion to permit the employees to take the examina-
tion for the· fifth and the last time. The last two chances cannot be taken C 
to be automatic or as of right. They are exceptional and are within the 
discretionary zone. [1004•G-H, 1005-A-B] 
2. All, except a few respondents, had availed of three chances and they 
did not pass the examinations prescribed in Appendix II of the Manual. 
Therefore, they are liable to be discharged from service. There is no ii-
D 
legality in the action taken by the appellants. However, in view of the fact 
that para 4(a) of the Appendix itself gives right to the employee to take three 
maximum normal chances for passing prescribed tests, the appellant is 
directed to give another chance as an exceptional circumstance to take the 
examination. Such candidates who pass the examination will be considered E 
for confirmation. If they do not pass, appropriate ordres would be issued to 
discharge them from service. (1005-E-FJ 
State of Kamataka v. B.V. Thimmappa, (1994) Supp. 1 S.C.C. 124, 
distinguished. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 4480-
4483 of 1995 etc. etc. 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.7.91 of. the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, Lucknow in O.A. Nos. 115, 127, 118 and 86of1990. G 
Altaf Ahmed, Additional Solicitor General, T.C. Sharma, V.K. 
Verma, Arvind K. Sharma, Mrs. Indu Goswami and C.V.S. Rao with him 
for the Appellants. 
P.P. Rao, Govind Mukhote, M.N. Krishnamani, Raj Kumar Gupta, H 
-
1002 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1995] 2 S.C.R. 
A Rajesh, Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Arvind Verma, Dhruv Mehta, K.L. 
Mehta, S. K,ulshreshta, R.K. Lacham, M.V. Goswami and C.P. Lal with 
them for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
B 
Leave granted. 
c 
These appeals by special leave are filed against different orders of 
the Central Adm
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.