BHABENDRA CHANDRA BARMAN Vs. POSTMASTER GENERAL, ASSAM CIRCLE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Civil Rule the Petitioner questions the validity of a seniority list of permanent and temporary telegraphists of Assam Circle, prepared by the Post Master General Shillong, indicated in Annexure B to the petition.

(2.) THE main contention of the Petitioner is that in an earlier list date 20 -11 -57, his name occurs as the first name, this list being Annexure 'A' whereas in Annexure 'B' his name occurs as the 44th and therefore the last name in the list. His contention is that although his confirmation was on 28 -4 -54 and therefore he is entitled to reckon his seniority from that date, a number of persons who had been confirmed later had been put over him in the seniority list, and this affected his future chances of absorption and promotion. It is pointed out in the affidavit in opposition that 10 persons have been placed above the Petitioner. But it has to be noticed that all these 10 persons were in service prior to the date the Petitioner was entertained in service. The list of dates given in Column 2 at page 4 of the affidavit in opposition, shows that these dates range from 1 -1 -46 to 25 -9 -53, all of which are before the date on which the Petitioner was entertained in service and with effect to which the Petitioner had been confirmed, namely 28 -4 -54. The contention of the Petitioner further is that there is an element of discrimination in the matter of giving preference to those already in service and particularly as evidenced by what has been stated in Paragraph 5 of the affidavit in opposition giving preference to those persons who had been drawing a monthly rate of pay higher than Rs. 60/ - prior to the date on which the Petitioner had been entertained. This apparently is based on a circular issued by the Director of Post and Telegraphs in Annexures 'C' and 'D' to the affidavit in opposition. In Annexure 'C', departmental candidates appointed as telegraphists are treated as a separate class by themselves and they are regarded as a class which ranks senior to candidates recruited from outside during the year In another paragraph it is also pointed out that non -departmental telegraphists absorbed as regular telegraphists in any particular year will take seniority below both the departmental candidates and outsiders as referred to earlier in the circular We do not see how the classification made in the circular, the categorisation and the seniority given according to that classification, could be impugned as involving a discrimination either under Article 14 or Article 16 of the Constitution The departmental candidates that is the candidates who had already been in service in the department, had been treated as a class by themselves and inter se those candidates there is no discrimination. Similarly the candidates who are recruited from outside during the period will rank over the non departmental candidates and inter se there is no discrimination.

(3.) IN fact, the present case is a much stronger one than the case before the Supreme Court, because in the instant case there is no question of any promotion involved but merely an arrangement of seniority of the telegraphists in the cadre, based on relevant considerations We feel, therefore, that there is ample justification in the method followed by the department in arranging the order of seniority based on prior service and prior pay merit being equal. Such an arrangement cannot be questioned as amounting to any discrimination violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.