UNION OF INDIA versus MADRAS TELEPHONE S.C. AND S.T., SOCIAL WELFARE ASSOCIATION, ETC.

Citation: [2000] 3 S.C.R. 618 · Decided: 26-04-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
UNION OF INDIA 
v. 
MADRAS TELEPHONE S.C. AND S.T., SOCIAL WELFARE 
ASSOCIATION, ETC. 
APRIL 26, 2000 
[G.B. PATTANAIK, R.P. SETHI AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.] 
Telegraph Engineering Sen1ice Class II Recruitment Rules, 1966: Rules 
2( e) and 5-Schedule-Appendix I and JI. 
Post and Telegraph Manual: Volume IV-Paragraph 206. 
Service Law : 
Telecommunication circles-Pmmotion to the post of Assistant Engineer 
D 
from the post of Junior Engineer-Pmcedure for pmmotion-Held procedure 
is that prescribed under 1966 Rules and not para 206 of the P & T Manual-
Held separate eligibility list should be prepared for each year of recruitment. 
Contempt--Supreme Cowt decision-Non-implementation by Depart-
mental Authorities-Gmund-Bona-fide belief that there were two conflicting 
E 
judgments-Clarification by Supreme Cowt-Held in the circumstances con-
tempt proceedings should be dropped. 
F 
G 
Administrative Law: 
/ 
Statutory Rules-Executive instructions-Conflict between-Applicabil-
ity of rules or instructions. 
Constitution of India, 1950 : 
A1ticle 136-Appea,l-Hearing-Closure of arguments-Subsequently In-
tervention Application made for oppo1tunity of being heard-Rejection of 
The Madras Telephone SC/ST Social Welfare Association filed a 
~--
petition for directions that the eligibility list of Officers for promotion to 
1- "' 
Engineering service be prepared by determining the seniority on the basis 
of confirmation as .Junior Engineer and that list should form the basis for 
H 
promotion to Class-II Service. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that 
618 
U.O.I. \(MADRAS TELEPHONE S.C. AND S.T. ASSN. 
619 
the year of recruitment for the purpose of seniority is extraneous and 
irrelevant and it accordingly directed that the eligibility list be arranged 
according to the year of passing the qualifying examination and amongst 
those, who pass the examination in the same year, the list should be accord-
ing to their merit, as seen from the marks obtained in the examination. 
Union of India challenged the said judgment before this Court. By its 
judgment dated 13.2.1997 in Union of India v. Madras Telephone SC/ST 
Social Welfare Association, (C.A. No. 4339 of 1995), this Court came to the 
conclusion that the eligibility list has to be prepared according to the year 
of recruitment. This Court did not accept the stand of the Association that 
the list should be prepared with reference to the year of confirmation. 
In the connected case (SLP (C) No. 3384-86 of 1986) the Allahabad 
High Court considered the grievance', of the petitioners on the basis of 
instructions contained in paragraph 206 of the P & T Manual and the 
provisions of the recruitment rules did not come up for consideration. The 
High Court ultimately directed that the petitioners before it should be 
promoted w.e.f. the date prior to a date of promotion of any person, who 
passed the department examination subsequent to them and adjust their 
seniority accordingly. Against the said judgment of Allahabad High Court, 
the Union of India preferred Special Leave Petition. By its order dated 
8.4.86 this Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition in Union of India v. 
P.N. Lal. 
Union of India has filed an application seeking clarifications on the 
ground that the judgment of this Court in the case of Union of India v. P.N. 
Lal runs contrary to the judgment of this Court in Union of india v. Madras 
Telephone SC/ST Social Welfare Association. 
The Madras Telephone SC/ST Social Welfare Association has filed a 
contempt petition before this Court contending that the directions given by 
this Court in Union of India v. Madras Telephone SC/ST Social Welfare 
Association had not been implemented. 
The other connected appeal (Nos. 6485-86 of 1998) is directed against 
the order of Central Administrative Tribunal. The appellant had chal-
lenged before the Tribunal his order of reversion dated 4.2.1993. The basis 
of the said reversion was refixation of the seniority in the rank of Assistant 
Engineer, because of some judgments of different Tribunals and because of 
some judgments of this Court. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
620 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2000] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
The question in these appeals and applications is as to how the 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
selection list has to be drawn up for the purpose of promotion to the post of 
Assistant Engineer from the post of Junior Engineer in the Tele-Communi-
cation Circles. 
Disposing of the appeals and applications, the Co

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