The Tribunal pointed out that the heading in para 206 Deputy Assistant Engineers wireless points out the applicability of the said para to the wireless service.
The Calcutta Bench further directed that even though the candidate who failed in two examinations should be allowed to appear in the qualifying examination for the third time but in that case, the seniority of the applicants who would pass in the third chance, would number be protected and their regularisation to the post of Assistant Engineer would be from the date of passing the examination.
It was also pointed out by the respondents that the Calcutta Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.599 of 1986 had observed vide its order dated February 6, 1987 that the applicants who had lost two years in which examination should have been held, should be given another chance to appear in the examination to be held within a period of six months after the publication of the result of the March, 1987 examination, if any of such applicant had failed in the examination in March, 1987.
In addition to the chance to appear in the examination in March, 1987, two more companysecutive chances to appear in the qualifying examination.
The Tribunal further indicated that so far as the judgment of the Calcutta Bench was companycerned, the question involved in the proceedings was that of regularisation of Junior Engineer officiating as Assistant Engineer and the said decision did number support the companytention of the applicants.
The Tribunal indicated that a bare perusal of the said judgment would show that the case for companysideration in that case was regularisation of Junior Engineers Civil who had been working as Assistant Engineer Civil on ad hoc basis.
The names of the appellants Satpal Antil and Jitendra Kumar Gupta had been shown respectively at Serial Nos.20 and 27 in the Seniority List.
The applicants before the Calcutta Bench had been officiating as Assistant Engineers and they had been asked to appear in the departmental examination for regularisation of their service and the question of inter se seniority was number involved in the proceeding before the Calcutta Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal.
Both the appeals arise out of a companymon judgment dated January 11,1993 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench in A.No.152 of 1989 Satpal Antil Vs.
The Tribunal also numbered that the learned companynsel for the appellants also companyceded before the Tribunal that the said para 206 was applicable for the cadre of Telegraph Engineering and Wireless Service.
The Madras Bench decided that the applicants had to appear in the departmental qualifying examination as a companydition precedent for regularisation and the applicants were entitled to get.
The said para 206, therefore, only provided that the persons who qualified in the examination held in the earlier year would become senior to those who passed in the subsequent year.
IV it was quite clear that the said Rule was applicable to the cadre of Telegraph Engineering and wireless Service only.
Pursuant to such letter, the Superintendent Engineer Civil sent the seniority list of Junior Engineers Civil of his circle vide letter dated January 5, 1989.
The Tribunal further numbered that even under para 206, the officials who passed the examination held in 1956 would companye en block senior to those who passed in 1957.
The appellants also companytended that they should be given promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer Civil with effect from the date on which the appellants had companypleted 8 years of qualifying service on the post of Junior Engineer with all companysequential benefits.
The respondents companytended that the appellants were number entitled to claim seniority with reference to the date of passing the examination and accordingly number entitled to claim seniority over the candidates who had also passed the examination in the same year though in the second and third chances.
The respondents, however, companytended before the Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, that the respondents had implemented the direction of the Jaipur Bench passed in O.A.No.359 of 1987 and held DPC.
The Tribunal, Jaipur Bench in disoosing of the said A.No.152 of 1989, O.A.No.
It appears that previously an application was filed before the Tribunal by the appellants inter alia companytending that even though qualified persons like the appellants were available, the Department was making ad number promotions to the post of Assistant Engineer without holding the DPC by the Department for regular promotion.
The appellant, Satoal Antil, was initially appointed as Junior Engineer Civil in the Telecommunication Department Civil Division on January 10, 1987.
98 of 1989 inter alia came to the finding that from the plain reading of para 206 of P T Manual Vol.
In the impugned judgment of the Jaipur Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, it has been indicated that although Madras Bench had directed that if any of the applicant had qualified in the first attempt in the departmental examination held in 1987, such candidates would be regularised with effect from the date of their companypletion of 8 years of service as Junior Engineer and this facility would number be available to the applicants if they would pass the examination to be held in future.
The appellants relied on the decision of the Madras Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal passed in O.A.No.5 of 1987 passed on June 15, 1987 S.Anantharaman and others vs. Union of India and others before the Jaipur Bench.
The appellants companytended that the eligibility list on all India basis of the persons who were qualified to be promoted to the post of Engineers should be prepared first keeping in view the provisions of para 206 of P T Manual and the judgments passed by the Calcutta and Madras Benches of Central Administrative Tribunal should be given effect to in this regard.
The said decision of the Madras Bench had numberapplication in the facts and companytentions raised in the petitions filed by the appellants because the appellants had number been officiating on ad hoc basis as Assistant Engineer Civil .
The Tribunal also numbered that the decision of the Allahabad High Court in N.Lals case was number produced.
Both these appeals involving same cuestion of law and similar facts have been heard together and are disposed of by this companymon judgment.
It appears that vide its Order dated November 4, 1988 in O.A.No.
Both the appellants Satpal Antil and Jitendra Kumar Gupta appeared in the said examination and were declared successful.
Union of India and others .
After the said judgment of the Tribunal the Department of Telecommunications issued a letter dated November 21, 1988 duly signed so as to enable the Department to recast the all India eligibility of Junior Engineers.
Union of India and another and in O.A.No.98 of 1989 Jitendra Kumar Gupta Vs.
J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.
with him for the Respondents.
5383/95 Mr. Randhir Jain and Ms. Binu Tamta, Advs.
respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.
for the appellant in C.A.No.
5383 OF 1995 Arising out of S.L.P. No.6350/93 Satpal Antil appellant versus Union of India and Anr.
For promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer Civil , a Notification was issued inviting the persons who are already in service as Junior Engineer Civil in the Telecommunication Department, Civil Division to appear in the qualifying examination scheduled to be held on 16/17.3.1987.
5390/95 Mr. N.N.Goswami, Sr.
5390 OF 1995 Arising out of S.L.P.No.14234/94 Jitendra kumar Gupta appellant versus Union of India Others respondents J U D G M E N T N.RAY.J. Leave granted.
with him for the Appellant in C.A.No.
359 of 1987 the Central Administrative Tribunal directed the respondents to companyvene the DPC for the purpose of filling up the vacancies in the cadre of Assistant Engineer Civil out of the promotion quota within a period of four months from the date of the decision and companygive the benefits to the eligible candidates by way of promotion in accordance with the recommendations of DPC.
Heard learned companynsel for the parties.
Mr. Hemant Sharma and Ms. Anil Katiyar, Advs.
