- (1.) Junior Telecom Officers Forum (for short 'Forum') through Shri Satpal Batra claiming to be the President of the Forum has filed Special Leave Petition Nos. 9063-64 of 1992 against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi refusing Intervention Application of the petitioner in O.A. No. 2407 of 1988 vide an order dated 22-4-1992 : Transfer Petition (Civil) No.417 of 1992 seeking transfer of various petitions pending in different benches of the Tribunal to this Court under Art. 139A(i) of the Constitution of India and Writ Petition (Civil) No. 460 of 1992. Mr. Ashok Desai, the learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioners in till the cases requested for the writ petition to be taken up for consideration, since, the issues involved in the writ petition and the special leave petitions are the same. We shall, accordingly, first take up the writ petition for consideration. The relief prayed for in the writ petition is as follows : "(a) Issue a Writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to give effect to the TES (Class II) Recruitment Rules 1966, memorandum dated 28-6-1966 and other such memorandum issued thereunder for the period 15-6-1966 to 6-5-1981 along with the TES (Group B) Recruitment Rules 1981 and amendments thereto. as promulgated under proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution of India w. e. f. 7-5-19.81 onwards; AND (b) Issue a Writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to make promotions based on to the TES (Group B) Service in conformity and in accordance with the eligibility list (Annexure-9) on the basis of (sic) the same year of recruitment separately for each year of recruitment and persons of the same year of recruitment be arranged on the basis of the exam. in that order, AND (c) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring para 206 of the P and T Manual Volume IV to be redundant and superseded by TES (Class II) Recruitment Rules 1966 w.e.f. 15-6-1966 and quashing its applicability thereafter to TES (Group B) Service; AND (d) Issue a Writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing, varying or setting or setting aside the judgment and order dated 20-2-1985 passed by Allahabad High Court in W.P. No. 2339/81 and W.P. No. 3652/81 and set aside, vary or quash, either in part or in full, the various judgments and orders following the said judgment including this Hon'ble Court's orders dated 8-4-1986 in SLP Nos. 3384-86/86 and dated 6-1-1992 in SLP Nos. 19716-22/91 AND (e) Issue a writ, in the nature of Prohibition, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction restraining the respondents from revising the seniority of Cadre of TES (Group B) Officers as per Para 206 of the P and T Manual Volume IV and further restrain the respondents from reverting Assistant Engineers already promoted in accordance with the TES (Class II) Recruitment Rules 1966 and TES (Group B) Recruitment Rules 1981 and memoranda and amendments thereto respectively; AND (f) Issue any other such or further appropriate writ, order or direction, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case and in the interest of justice; AND (g) Awards costs of the petition to the petitioners; AND (h) Pass such further and other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In paras H, N and O of the writ petition, it has been averred as follows: "That dismissal of SLP by this Hon'ble Court in P. N. Lal's case and Brij Mohan's case, is in all humility and with great respect a nullity and not operative as a precedent at all. Whereas P. N. Lal's case and Brij Mohan's case Were based on suppression of relevant rules, regulations and statutory instructions rendering the judgment vitiated and erroneous, this Hon'ble Court too did not have any occasion to consider the said facts since the same were not brought to the notice of this Hon'ble Court as well. The order of this Hon'ble Court in SLPs is based on the facts and circumstances of the case as before the Allahabad High Court, and not ratio decidendi and hence is not a judgment binding under Art. 141 of the Constitution of India and is neither a precedent nor acts as res judicata to even fresh action by adversely affected persons/ petitioners. (AIR 1989 SC 38) (N) That the order of this Hon'ble Court dated 6-1-1992 dismissing SLP Nos. 19716-22 of 1991 in limine is with all humility and great respect not a precedent but is an order on facts and circumstances of the case and do not lay down any law for purposes of Art. 141 of the Constitution of India. Furthermore it is settled law that a judgment rendered in ignorance of a statute or a rule having a statutory force, which would have affected the result is not binding on a Court, otherwise bound by its own decisions (1962) 2 SCR 558 : (AIR 1962 SC 83) (O) That the orders of this Hon'ble Court in the two SLPs dated 8-4-1986 and 6-1-1992 are judgments in the facts and circumstances of the case and cannot be cited as precedents, more so since no ratio nor any principles are laid therein. (AIR 1975 SC 1087, AIR 1967 SC 1460). It is always open to this Hon'ble Court to re-exam the question, already decided by it and to overrule, if necessary, the view taken earlier insofar as all other Courts in India are concerned ought to be bound by the view even in advisory jurisdiction. (AIR 1979 SC 478). Furthermore where it is an error apparent on the face of record complained of such as the judgment does not deal effectively and determine an important issue in the case on which depends the maintainability of the petition, such error must be recorded as a sufficient reason for interference. (1955) SCR 520 : (AIR 1954 SC 526).
(2.) The controversy, as we have been able to gather from the voluminous record of the writ petition, relates to the mode of promotion to Telecom Engineering Service (Group B) as well as to the fixation of seniority of junior telecom officers and assistant engineers in that category and the preparation of the eligibility or the approved list for the said purpose by the department in accordance with the recruitment rules and Para 206 of the P and T Manual, Vol. IV. Para 206 provide for a pass in the departmental qualifying examination as a condition precedent for promotion to the, Telecom Engineering Service (hereinafter TES) Group B. Para 206(II) of the Manual provides that promotion to the TE and WS (Class II) will be according to the seniority- cum-fitness but engineering supervisors who pass the qualifying examination earlier will rank senior en-bloc at a group to those who pass the examination later. Their seniority intere se has been arranged according to their seniority in the cadre of engineering supervisors. In case the year of passing of the examination is the same, the percentage of marks obtained at the end of theoretical training, at the training centres, governs the arrangement of inter se seniority. The basis under which the lists are being prepared by the department and against which the petitioners have a grievance are certain judgments and we shall refer to the same in brief hereafter.
(3.) In 1981 S/Shri P. N. Lal (recruitted in the 1966 batch) and Brij Mohan (recruited in the 1965 batch) who had qualified in the qualifying examination held in 1974 filed two writ petitions in the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court complaining of their placement in the eligibility list below the last man who passed the qualifying examination in 1975. The case of the department was that the eligibility list had been arranged on the basis of the seniority, based on the year of recruitment ignoring the year of passing the qualifying departmental examination. The High Court considered the rules of 1966 as also the rules of 1981 and para 206 of the P and T Manual and came to conclusion that those who qualified in the departmental examination earlier were entitled to be promoted prior to those who qualified later irrespective of the year of their initial recruitment. The High Court noticed that para 206 of the P and T Manual was in existence when the rules of 1966 and 1981 came into force and held that para 206 was not in conflict with either the rules of 1961 or 1981 but was supplemental to those rules. Relief was accordingly granted to the writ petitioners based on the interpretation of the Rules and Para 206 of the P and T Manual.;