Sawant, J. - (1.) These are two groups of appeals, viz., C.A. Nos. 2698-99 of 1992 filed by the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board (the 'Board') and C.A. Nos. 2700-01 of 1992 filed by the aggrieved employee of the Board, Shri Mehta. The short point involved in this case is whether the seniority in the higher post of Superintendent is to be determined on the basis of the date of passing the 'Subordinate Accounts Service' ('S.A.S.') Examination or on the basis of their seniority in the lower feeding cadre of Upper Division Clerks (UDC/ Assistants/ Internal Auditors/ Head Clerks. The promotion to the post of the Superintendent is governed by the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Recruitment and Promotion Regulations for Ministerial Services of the Board, 1972, (the '1972 Regulations') which are made in exercise of powers conferred by S. 79(c) read with S. 15 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and which came into force w.e.f. 1-7-1972. Rule 8 of the 1972 Regulations provides that the method of recruitment to the posts under the Board shall be by written or oral test or by both, or by promotion. It further states that the method of recruitment, promotion, minimum qualifications, period of probation etc. for each of the Board's services shall be as set forth in Appendices A and B of the 1972 Regulations. Clause 10 of Appendix A lays down the method of selection to the post of Superintendent. It states that at Superintendent level, there would be a subordinate Accounts Service. The eligibility for this Service shall be passing of S.A.S. Examination. All UDCs having four years' service shall be eligible for appearing in the examination in addition to Assistant/ Internal Auditors/ Head Clerks. For the initial constitution, however, Superintendents having three years' service on the Accounts side may also be considered. The said clause 10, therefore, makes it clear that to be eligible for promotion to the post of Superintendent, two conditions have to be satisfied. The first is that the employee concerned must have put in a minimum of four years' service as UDC/ Assistant/ Internal Auditor/ Head Clerk at the time of appearing for the examination, and the second is that he must pass the examination. It is obvious that no employee can be promoted to the post of Superintendent unless he satisfies the two conditions. Hence, the seniority of an employee in the cadre of Superintendents would depend upon the date on which he enters that cadre after satisfying the two conditions. The seniority in the lower feeding cadre of UDC etc. is irrelevant for considering the seniority in the cadre of Superintendents except when both the eligible employees pass the examination on the same date.
(2.) There is no dispute that Shri D. R. Mehta who is respondent No. 2 in the Board's appeals, viz., C.A. Nos. 2698/ 99 of 1992 and is appellant in C. A. Nos. 2700-01 of 1992, was junior as U.D.C. to Shri Uppal who is respondent No. 1 in both the groups of appeals. However, he took his examination for the post of the Superintendent in June 1972 and passed the same on 30-10-1972. 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. 6-4-1973. He was also confirmed in the substantive capacity w.e.f. 1-11-1989. As against this, respondent No. 1, Uppal passed the examination in December 1973. He was considered for appointment as Superintendent by the DPC and was appointed to that post in officiating capacity w.e.f. 24-8-1974. He was appointed in substantive capacity to the said post w.e.f. 7-7-1990. Hence, respondent No. 2, Mehta was entitled to seniority over respondent No. 1, Shri Uppal, in the cadre of Superintendents.
(3.) However, in the impugned decision, the Central Administrative Tribunal ('the Tribunal') took the view, firstly that the passing of the qualifying examination was not a prerequisite for being promoted to the post of Superintendent. For this purpose, the Tribunal relied upon two documents. The first is a letter dated 2-8-1968 addressed by the Chief Engineer of the Department of M.P.P. and 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 not considered for sponsoring the candidates in undergoing the S.A.S. Part I training and that the training would not confer any special rights on the trainees. 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 condition that he should qualify in the examination within a period of three years. Admittedly, both these letters are internal communications from one officer to another and their contents cannot override the express provisions of the regulations made under the Act. Secondly, the letter of 2-8-1968 is obviously prior to the coming into operation of the 1972 Regulations. In fact, the letter refers to the period when the Board itself had not come into existence and when the matter was being handled by the predecessor of the Board, viz., the Department of M.P.P. and Power of the State Government. The contents of this letter at no time were adopted, ratified or approved by the Board. In any case, as stated earlier, the said letter cannot override the statutory regulations.;