In any case, as stated earlier, the said letter cannot override the statutory regulations.
After passing the examination, a meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee DPC was held in which he was selected and appointed regularly in officiating capacity to the post of Superintendent w.e.f.
the Department of M.P.P. Power of the State Government.
It was number a case of both passing the same examination.
The provisions of this clause in fact are against the view taken by the Tribunal.
As against this, respondent No.
He was also companyfirmed in the substantive capacity w.e.f.
The tribunal has also relied upon 1973 Regulations which came into effect only from April 1973.
In fact, the letter refers to the period when the Board itself had number companye into existence and when the matter was being handled by the predecessor of the Board, viz.,
the total length of service as UDC Assistant Divisional Accounts sic.
Hence, respondent No.
The first is a letter dated 2.8.1968 addressed by the Chief Engineer of the Department of M.P.P. Power of the State Government to the Superintendent in his own office, on the subject of training, whereby the Superintendent was informed by the Chief Engineer that seniority was number companysidered for sponsoring the candidates in undergoing the S.A.S. Part I training and that the training would number companyfer any special rights on the trainees.
1.11.1989.
Admittedly, both these letters are internal companymunications from one officer to another and their companytents cannot override the express provisions of the regulations made under the Act.
Further, the 1973 Regulations do number in any manner modify or affect the 1972 Regulations.
The second document is a promotion order dated 31.7.1976 to the post of Superintendent on the cadre of Finance and Accounts Wing of one Narinder Pal Sharma wherein it is mentioned that the promotion given to the said Sharma was subject to the companydition that he should qualify in the examination within a period of three years.
Hence on the date of examination, more than five years service was to his credit in the requisite capacity.
In the present case, the examination was taken and the appointment was made under the 1972 Regulations.
1, Uppal.
Admittedly, in the present case, respondent No.
2, Mehta passed the examination earlier than respondent No.
Furthermore, what the Tribunal forgot was that whereas 1973 Regulations came into effect after April 1973, respondent No.
The companytents of this letter at numbertime were adopted, ratified or approved by the Board.
1, Shri Uppal, in the cadre of Superintendents.
24.8.1974.
2, Mehta was appointed to the post of Superintedent on and from 6.4.1973.
7.7.1990.
the main judgment dated 9.7.1991 and the judgment in review dated 15.11.1991 are hereby set aside and respondent No.As stated earlier, in any event, the 1973 Regulations on which reliance is placed by the Tribunal would number govern the present case.
As amongst persons who pass the same exam.,
1, Uppal passed the examination in December 1973.
He was appointed in substantive capacity to the said post w.e.f.
2, Mehta was entitled to seniority over respondent No.
However, in the impugned decision, the Central Administrative Tribunal the Tribunal took the view, firstly that the passing of the qualifying examination was number a pre requisite for being promoted to the post of Superintendent.
Secondly, the letter of 2.8.1968 is obviously prior to the companying into operation of the 1972 Regulations.
For this purpose, the Tribunal relied upon two documents.
However, he took his examination for the post of the Superintendent in June 1972 and passed the same on 30.10.1972.
2700 01 of 1992 filed by the aggrieved employee of the Board, Shri Mehta.
The Tribunal, unfortunately, also did number numberice Clause 15 of the 1973 Regulations which reads as follows On and after the companymencement of these rules and until persons are appointed to the service in accordance with the provisions of the rules, such posts may companytinue to be held by persons appointed thereto as if these rules have number companye into force.
2698 99 of 1992 filed by the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board the Board and C.A. Nos.
Clause 8 ii of the 1973 Regulations reads as follows A person who passes SAS Exam in an earlier exam, shall have precedence in appointment to the service over a person who passes in a later exam.
B. Sawant, J. These are two groups of appeals, viz.,
C.A. Nos.
6.4.1973.
