2019 INSC 0648                      NON­REPORTABLE                                                 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION    CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6124­6125  OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos.175­176 of 2019) The Superintendent of Post Offices             .…Appellant(s) & Ors.                   Versus Hanuman Giri            ….Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T A.S. Bopanna,J.                 Leave granted.      2.         The  appellants  herein   are  assailing  the  order  dated 19.07.2013   passed   by   the   High   Court   of   Judicature   at Allahabad in Writ A.No.9549/2011.  By the said order the High   Court   has   dismissed   the   appeal   filed   by   the appellants herein.  The Review filed by the appellants was also   dismissed   through   the   subsequent   order   dated 21.08.2017.     In   that   view,   the   order   dated   05.10.2010 Page 1 of 15 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench,   Allahabad,   (“CAT”   for   short)   in   O.A.No.888/2009 as also the Order dated 17.01.2011 passed by the CAT in Review   Application   No.77/2010   stands   approved   by   the High   Court.     It   is   in   that   view,   the   appellants   are   before this   Court   assailing   the   above   stated   orders   in   these appeals. 3.   The   brief   facts   which   are   to   be   noted   limited   for consideration of these appeals are as hereunder. 4.   The   second   appellant   herein,   namely,   the   Post Master   General,   Kanpur   Region,   Kanpur,   U.P.   issued   a Notification   dated   24.05.1991   inviting   applications   from Extra Departmental Delivery Agents (“Delivery Agents” for short)   to   appear   in   the   examination   to   be   considered   for promotion to the post of Postman.  The respondent herein and   the   other   similarly   placed   Delivery   Agents   had appeared   in   the   examination   held   on   18.08.1991. Pursuant   to   such   Notification,   the   Chief   Post   Master General,   U.P.   Circle   at   Lucknow   issued   an   order   dated 27.07.1992   informing   the   Director,   Postal   Services, Page 2 of 15 Kanpur   that   the   examination   held   on   18.08.1991   in Banda,   Fatehpur   and   Fatehgarh   Division   be   cancelled. Though   the   respondent   herein   did   not   assail   the   same, certain   other   Delivery   Agents   including   one   Shri Jagmohan   Yadav,   in   all   five   applicants,   challenged   the said   order   dated   27.06.1992   cancelling   the   examination held   for   promotion,   by   approaching   the   CAT   in   O.A. No.546/1992.     The   said   O.A.No.546/1992   was   disposed of on 05.02.1997 wherein the CAT set aside the direction issued   by   the   Chief   Post   Master   General   dated 27.07.1992   and   directed   to   publish   the   result   of   all successful   candidates   to   be   promoted   against   17 vacancies   available   in   Kanpur   Head   Post   Offices   as   per Rules.   The Review Application bearing  No.33/1997 filed by the appellants herein was dismissed through the order dated 31.07.2000.   Since the order  of CAT had not  been complied   with,   the   said   Shri   Jagmohan   Yadav   and   four others   filed   Contempt   Application   bearing   No.135/2002 before   the   CAT.     The   non­consideration   of   the   Contempt Application in an appropriate manner by the CAT had led to the filing of the Civil Misc.Writ Petition No.12990/2004 Page 3 of 15 before the High Court, by the said Shri Jagmohan Yadav and   others.     The   said   Writ   Petition   was   allowed   and   the matter   was   remitted   to   the   CAT   for   consideration   afresh and   in   the   said   process   the   said   Shri   Jagmohan   Yadav was promoted as a Postman. 5.       The genesis of the case being such, the respondent herein   also   having   appeared   in   the   examination   held   on 18.08.1991   sought   to   take   the   benefit   of   the   direction issued   by   the   CAT   in   O.A.No.546/1992   though   he   was not a party therein. Accordingly he filed a representation dated   02.07.2007   and   claimed   for   promotion   as   a Postman.     The   appellants   herein   did   not   consider   the same   favourably   but   intimated   him   that   he   was   not   an applicant in O.A.No.546/1992 and in that view the result in  the  examination   held  for  promotion  was  not   declared. The respondent, however, sought and obtained details of his   result   through   an   application   made   under   the   Right to   Information   Act,   2005   and   on   learning   that   he   had obtained   127.5   marks,   at   the   outset   was   of   the impression that  the said  Shri Jagmohan Yadav who  had Page 4 of 15 been   promoted   was   less   meritorious   though   in   fact   he had secured 137 marks out of 150 marks.  It was further the   case   of   the   respondent   that   through   the   said   marks since he was placed at Serial No.12 in the merit list and there   were   17   vacancies   in   Kanpur   Head   Post   Office   he was entitled.  Hence he sought for promotion as Postman since   according   to   him   his   rank   in   the   merit   list   was within   the   number   of   vacancies.     The   said   claim   of   the respondent   herein   was   repudiated   by   the   appellants herein   which   resulted   in   respondent   herein   approaching the CAT in O.A. No.888/2009.  6.   In   the   said   proceedings   the   appellants   herein opposed   the   claim   of   respondent   herein.     The   CAT   by adverting to the rival contentions, through its order dated 05.10.2010, took note of the scope of the order passed in O.A.No.546/1992   (relating   to   Shri   Jagmohan   Yadav   and others)   based   on   which   the   respondent   herein   was making a claim. Since the claim of respondent herein had been   declined   by   the   appellants   on   the   ground   that   he was   not   the   applicant   in   O.A.No.546/1992,   the   CAT   by Page 5 of 15 order   dated   05.02.1997   had   held   that   the   order   dated 27.07.1992   passed   by   the   Chief   Post   Master   General, U.P.   Circle   for   cancellation   of   the   examination   held   in Banda,   Fatehpur   and   Fathegarh   Division   had   been quashed   in   its   entirety.   Hence,   in   that   case   since   the appellants   herein   were   directed   to   declare   the   result   of the   examination   and   give   appointment   to   the   successful candidates,   the  CAT was of the  opinion  that  the results of   all   candidates   who   appeared   for   the   examination including   that   of   the   respondent   herein   ought   to   have been   announced and the promotions as Postman to the 17 vacancies in Kanpur Head Post Offices was required to be made.  In that view, on noticing that the same had not been   done   by   the   appellant,   the   CAT   directed consideration   of   the   case   of   the   respondent   herein.     The Review   filed   by   the   appellants   herein   against   such   order was also dismissed.  It is also to be noted that one of the reasons   which   was   also   taken   into   consideration   by   the CAT   to   accept   the   claim   of   the   respondent   herein   was that   he   claimed   to   have   secured   more   marks   than   Shri Page 6 of 15 Jagmohan   Yadav   who   had   secured   the   promotion   in   the very same process that was undertaken.  7.   The   High   Court   while   taking   note   of   the contentions put forth in the writ petition has adverted to the very nature of the consideration made by the CAT as taken   note   hereinabove   and   has   approved   the   order passed   by   the   CAT.     The   Review   Petition   filed   by   the appellants   herein   though   was   dismissed,   one   aspect   of the   matter   which   got   highlighted   and   clarified   therein   is that the claim as put forth by the respondent that he was more   meritorious     than   Shri   Jagmohan   Yadav   was   not the   correct   position   inasmuch   as   the   said   Shri Jagamohan   Yadav   had   obtained   137   marks   as   against 127.5   marks   obtained   by   the   respondent   herein. However,   the   High   Court   was   of   the   opinion   that   even   if that  be the position, the basic consideration  as made by the   CAT   and   taken   note   by   it   in   its   order   does   not   get altered.     In   that   view   the   point   that   would   remain   for consideration   herein   is,     as   to   whether   the   claim   of   the respondent herein that he was entitled to be promoted as Page 7 of 15 he   was   at   Serial   No.12   in   the   merit   list   and   as   such   he would be one among  the Delivery  Agents to be promoted against the vacancy of 17 posts of Postman is sustainable ? 8.        We have extensively heard Shri Vikramjit Banerjee learned   Additional   Solicitor   General   appearing   for   the appellants,   Shri   S.D.   Singh   learned   counsel   for   the respondent and perused the appeal papers including the additional   documents   brought   on   record   along   with   an application.     We   have   also   taken   note   of   the   objections raised   by   the   learned   counsel   for   the   respondent contending that the documents sought to be relied upon in the instant proceedings is against the admitted factual position.     However,   in   a   matter   of   the   present   nature where   the   records   are   maintained   by   the   employer, unless the authenticity of the said document is in doubt, there would be no impediment for this Court to take note of   the   documents   which   are   brought   on   record   in   an appropriate manner.   Page 8 of 15 9. On   the   above   basis   we   proceed   to   examine   the issue   by   taking   note   of   all   relevant   material.     In   that regard   the   basic   document   to   be   taken   note   is   the Notification dated 24.05.1991 through which the process for   promotion   was   set   in   motion.     The   same   was addressed  to   all  Postmasters/Sub  Post  Masters/  Branch Post   Masters;   to   the   Assistant   Superintendent   Post Offices,   Hamirpur   and   All   Sub   Divisional   Inspectors   in Banda Division.   On informing about the examination to be held on 18.08.1991 it was further indicated that there is no vacancy in Postman Cadre in this Division (which is a   reference   to   Banda   Division   as   the   said   Notification   is issued from Banda Division).   Hence qualified candidates will   have   to   go   to   other   Divisions   on   availability   of vacancy.     It   further   states   that   no   candidate   will   be posted   in   Banda   Division   in   any   circumstance.     In   our view the said instructions as contained in the Notification dated   24.05.1991   is   to   be   kept   in   perspective   while examining the other aspects of the matter since from the rival   contentions   it   assumes   significance   and   would   be relevant   to   take   note   so   as   to   conclude   whether   the Page 9 of 15 respondent herein should be promoted based on his rank in the merit list at Serial No.12 relating to Banda Division or as to whether the vacancy position is to be taken note in   the   background   of   the   common   merit   list   relating   to the   Delivery   Agents   of   all   Divisions   against   the   17 vacancies   in   Kanpur   Head   Post   Offices.     Though   the learned counsel for the respondent seeks to contend that the   position   of   the   respondent   being   at   Serial   No.12   has been   admitted   in   all   earlier   proceedings   and   the appellants   cannot   be   allowed   to   resile   from   the   said position, it would be necessary to examine as to whether the merit of the respondent at Serial No.12 relates to the common   merit   list   of   all   divisions   or   as   to   whether     he was   at   Serial   No.12   of   the   merit   list   limited   to   Banda Division.     Such   consideration,   in   our   view,   is   necessary as it is the only issue which is germane for the purpose of decision making herein. 10.        In that background, as already taken note by us the   genesis   of   the   case   being   a   consideration   made   in Page 10 of 15 O.A.No.546/1992   it   would   be   necessary   to   take   note   of the   nature   of   consideration   made   therein.     In   the   said proceedings,   the   applicants   therein   namely,   Shri Jagmohan Yadav and others while assailing the action of appellants   herein   had   contended   that   the   candidates   of Banda   Division   could   be   posted   against   the   unfilled vacancies   of   Kanpur   Head   Post   Offices   and   Kanpur   City Postal   Division.     It   is   no   doubt   true   that   the   appellants herein in order  to oppose the said contention had stated in the said proceedings that the 17 left over vacancies of Kanpur   Head   Post   Offices   which   is   Group­A   Post   Office are   to   be   filled   from   Local   Postal   Division   as   per   the extant   rules   and   cannot   be   filled   by   the   staff   of   other Divisions.     The   conclusion   reached   by   the   CAT   after taking note of the rules is that there was no averment by the   respondent   that   those   17   vacancies   of   Kanpur   Head Post   Offices   have   been   filled   from   the   other   Local Divisions or any other Division.  By an implication it was noted that no more selected staff was available for filling up   the   balance   17   vacancies   from   Delivery   Agents   of Kanpur   Local   Postal   Division.     In   that   circumstance,   it Page 11 of 15 was   held   that   on   declaration   of   the   result   the   staff   of Banda   Division   can   also   be   eligible   to   be   considered   for 17   vacancies   of   Kanpur   Head   Post   Offices   as   per   Rules. It was, therefore, held therein that the stand taken by the appellants   herein   to   the   effect   that   vacancies   of   Kanpur Head   Post   Offices   cannot   be   filled   by   the   staff   of   other Divisions than those located at Kanpur is not tenable.  In that   circumstance,   it   was   directed   that   the   results   of other candidates from all Divisions is to be declared and the 17 posts are to be filled up.   It was precisely held as hereunder: “In   the   present   case   as   we   have   held   earlier, 17   vacancies   of   Kanpur   Head   Post   Offices were   left   unfilled   and   the   same   should   have been   filled   by   successful   staff   of   Banda Division or any other Division as applicable.” 11. Therefore,   the   basis   on   which   the   consideration was   made   subsequent   thereto   including   promotion   of Shri   Jagmohan   Yadav,   though   belatedly,   was   based   on Page 12 of 15 the marks obtained in the merit list.  On that aspect it is to   be   taken   note   that   though   the   merit   list   of   Fatehpur Division,   Fatehgarh   Division   and   Banda   Division   are separately   maintained,   a   common   merit   list   of   Delivery Agents   in   respect   of   Kanpur   Region   which   includes Fatehpur   Division,   Fatehgarh   Division   and   Banda Division   relating   to   the   examinations   conducted   in   the year   1991   was   also   maintained.     As   noticed,   the   very Notification   dated   24.05.1991   indicates   that   though   the examinations   are   held   the   qualified   candidates   will   have to go to other Divisions on availability of vacancy as there was no vacancy of Postman in Banda Division.  If that be the   position   in   respect   of   the   unfilled   17   vacancies   of Kanpur   Head   Post   Offices,   the   persons   in   order   of   merit from   all   Divisions   including   Banda   Division   wherein   the respondent   was   working   would   be   entitled   to   be considered based on common merit list.  12.   In that situation though in the merit list of Banda Division Shri Jagmohan Yadav was at Serial No.1 and the Page 13 of 15 respondent   herein   was   at   Serial   No.12,   in   the   common merit list Shri Jagmohan Yadav was at Serial No.2 while the   respondent   herein   was   at   Serial   No.43.     The   total marks obtained by the candidates would indicate that the person at Serial No.17 in the said common merit list had obtained   131   marks   and   after   the   said   candidate   there are several other candidates who had obtained marks up to 128, after which the respondent having obtained 127.5 is at Serial No.43.   In such situation ignoring the others, the  respondent  herein in  any   event  cannot  be promoted. Hence the consideration made by the CAT in favour of the respondent   herein   would   not   be   justified.     Though ultimately   in   the   Review   Petition   before   the   High   Court the   fact   that   the   respondent   had   not   secured   more marks   than   Shri   Jagmohan   Yadav   was   taken   note   and was clarified that even otherwise the direction issued was appropriate, we find that despite all the factors as noticed above   it   appears   that   what   weighed   in   the   mind   of   the CAT in O.A.No.888/2009 was a wrong assumption of the respondent   being   more   meritorious   than   the   candidate who was granted benefit due to the earlier orders. Page 14 of 15 13. If that be the position, the orders impugned herein are   not   sustainable.     Therefore,   the   order   dated 17.01.2011   passed   in   O.A.No.888/2009   and   the   order dated   17.01.2011   passed   in   Review   Application No.77/2010   by   the   CAT   as   also   the   order   dated 19.07.2013 passed in Writ Appeal No.9549/2011 and the order   dated   21.08.2017   passed   in   Review   Petition No.285160/2013   by   the   High   Court   of   Judicature   at Allahabad are set aside. 14. Accordingly,   the   instant   appeals   are   allowed   with no order as to costs.   All pending applications also stand disposed of. ……………………….J. (R. BANUMATHI) ……………………….J.                                               (A.S. BOPANNA) New Delhi, August 06, 2019 Page 15 of 15