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