Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2311 (ALL)

KANTI SWARUP SHARMA v. UNION OF INDIA

2012-10-01

R.K.AGRAWAL, RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA)

body2012
JUDGMENT By the Court.—Present appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 23rd May, 2005 passed by the learned single Judge whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant challenging the letter dated 1.4.2003 and supplementary result declared in pursuance thereto issued by the Assistant general Manager (Estt.) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., New Delhi, respondent No. 4 as also seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the promotion of the petitioners for the post of Junior Telecom Officer under 15% quota for the vacancies in terms of the relaxation in qualifying standards as provided in Clause 3(III) of the departmental letter dated 10.3.2003 has been dismissed. 2. We have heard Sri Rajesh Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, and Sri Devi Shankar Shukla learned standing counsel appearing for respondents, perused the impugned order dated 23rd May, 2005 passed by the learned single Judge giving rise to the present appeal, grounds taken in the memo. of appeal and the documents filed alongwith it. The appellants are serving as Senior telecom Operating Assistant in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (hereinafter referred to as BSNL) at Ghaziabad. They claimed the benefit of reservation to the next promotion to the post of Junior Telecom Officer which is governed by the Junior Telecom Officer Recruitment Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Under the aforesaid Rules 15% quota has been reserved for promotion of the departmental candidates through a competitive examination. Rule 7 of the Rules empowers the Central Government for relaxation where it is necessary or expedient to do so and for the reasons to be recorded in writing, relaxing any of the provisions of the Rules with respect of any class or category of persons. The departmental examination was held on 15/16.5.1999. The appellant appeared in the examination but could not succeed. At that time the minimum requirement was 40% qualifying marks in respect of candidates of other casts and 33% marks for the candidates of SC/ST categories. As sufficient number of candidates could not qualify in the departmental examination the BSNL issued a circular letter dated 10.3.2003 for relaxing the qualifying marks The relation mentioned in the letter is to the following effect: “The relaxation would be as under: (i) The condition for obtaining minimum qualifying standards in each subject will be dispensed with. As sufficient number of candidates could not qualify in the departmental examination the BSNL issued a circular letter dated 10.3.2003 for relaxing the qualifying marks The relation mentioned in the letter is to the following effect: “The relaxation would be as under: (i) The condition for obtaining minimum qualifying standards in each subject will be dispensed with. (ii) The merit list will be prepared on the basis of the aggregate marks obtained in all four subjects by the candidates. (iii) The required minimum aggregate marks in all subjects will be 30% for OBC candidates and 20% for SC/ST candidates. However in respect of results which have been finalised between 27th July 1997 and 3rd October, 2000 there would be no separate standards for SC/ST candidates and 30% will be uniformly applied to all candidates. (iv) The above relaxation would be applied to either of the two examinations i.e. the examination held in the year 1999 or in the year 2000 whichever was later. In short, the relaxation will not be applicable to both the examination where the examinations has been held in both the years but will be applicable to the last examination held in a circle under 15% quota and shall not be precedent for any future examination.” 3. The appellant claimed relaxation in terms of the circular letter dated 10th March, 2003. The respondents have not given relaxation to them on the ground that under Clause 3(iv) relaxation could only be granted to the examination held in the years 1999/2000 whichever is later and as examinations were held in the year 2000 and the appellants appeared in the year 1999, they cannot be granted relaxation. The learned single Judge held that the appellants are not entitled to get the benefit of relaxation and dismissed the writ petition. 4. Before us, Sri Rajesh Singh, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the departmental examinations were held on 15/16th May, 1999 and even though the examinations were scheduled to be held on 17/18th June, 2000 but it was postponed and subsequently it was held on 17/18th February, 2001. He, thus submitted that the examinations held on 17/18th February, 2001 cannot be taken to be the examinations of the year 2000. According to him relaxation was, thus, available to the appellants in terms of the circular letter dated 10th March, 2003. 5. He, thus submitted that the examinations held on 17/18th February, 2001 cannot be taken to be the examinations of the year 2000. According to him relaxation was, thus, available to the appellants in terms of the circular letter dated 10th March, 2003. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that Clause 3(iv) of the circular letter dated 10th March, 2003 would not be applicable in the present case as the examinations were fixed for 2000. 6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the various pleas raised by the learned counsel for the parties and find that the circular letter dated 10th March, 2003 would be applicable to the actual examinations held in the year 1999 or 2000. It does not speak to the examinations of the year 1999 or 2000. It clearly provided for the examinations held in the year 1999 or in the year 2000. In paragraph 7 the writ petition specific plea has been raised that the examinations were held on 15/16th May, 1999 and thereafter, it was next to be held on 17/18th June, 2000 but the examination was not held on 17/18th June, 2000. It was actually held on 17/18th February, 2001. Paragraph 7 of the writ petition is reproduced below: “7. That, the aforesaid vacancies upto 31.8.1999 could not be filled up completely by means of the aforesaid departmental examination dated 15/16th May, 1999 and some of the vacancies remained vacant. In order to fill up the remaining vacancies the department vide letter dated 28.3.2000 decided to conduct another examination which was scheduled to be held on 17/18th June, 2000. But the examination could not be held on the scheduled date, thereafter, it was scheduled to be conducted on 16/17th September, 2000 but it could not be conducted on this date. Ultimately vide letter dated 28.11.2000, it was re-scheduled to be held on 17/18th February, 2001 and it was conducted on the same date.” In paragraph 9 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it has been stated that the contends of paragraph 7 of the writ petition are matters of record and needs no specific reply. It may be mentioned here that in paragraph 8 the respondents have admitted that examination was held on 17/18th February 2001. Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the counter-affidavit are reproduced below: “8. It may be mentioned here that in paragraph 8 the respondents have admitted that examination was held on 17/18th February 2001. Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the counter-affidavit are reproduced below: “8. That the contents of paragraph No. 6 of the writ petitioner are mater of record and needing no specific reply. However, it is stated that competitive examination, (15%) quota) for vacancies upto 31.8.1999 was held on 17/18.2.2001. The exam held on 15/16 May 99 was for vacancies upto 31.3.1998. The standard for this competitive exam is based on the merit list of candidates who qualify with minimum 40% marks in each paper for OC and 33% marks in each paper for SC/ST. 9. That the contents of paragraph No. 7 of the writ petition are matters of records need no specific reply." 7. Thus the fact that no examination was held in the year 2000 stands admitted by the respondents. The examinations were actually held in the year 1999 and thereafter in the year 2001. Relaxation provided vide circular letter dated 10th March, 2003 would, therefore, be applicable to the candidates appearing in the examination 1999. They are entitled to the benefit and relaxation provided therein. We, therefore, set aside the order passed by the learned single Judge and direct the respondent No. 4 to redraw the result of the appellants in the light of the observations made above as they are entitled to the benefit of relaxation as provided under Clause 3(iv) of the circular letter dated 10th March, 2003, within six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the said respondents. If ultimately they are found eligible for promotion, then in that event they shall all be promoted according to their respective batch mates with all consequential benefits. The appeal succeeds and is allowed. ——————