Kerala High Court
Union Of India vs A.Mohandas on 3 March, 2025
Author: Anil K. Narendran
Bench: Anil K. Narendran
1
OP(CAT)No.108 of 2017 2025:KER:17421
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 12TH PHALGUNA, 1946
OP (CAT) NO. 108 OF 2017
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.06.2016 IN OA NO.85 OF 2014 OF
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH
PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF
COMMUNICATIONS, NEW DELHI.
2 DIRECTOR OF GENERAL OF POSTS
DAK BHAVAN, NEW DELHI.
3 CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL
KERALA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
4 SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
RMS TV DIVISION, THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM 695 036.
5 SUPERINTENDENT
RMS, CT DIVISION, KOZHIKODE.
BY SRI.T.C.KRISHNA, DSGI IN CHARGE
SRI.T.V.VINU, CGC
RESPONDENTS/APPLICANTS IN OA:
1 A.MOHANDAS
S/O.THE LATE ARUN,WORKING AS PART-TIME SCAVENGER,SUB
RECORD OFFICER, RMS CT DIVISION,PALAKKAD RESIDING AT
KENNOTH PARAMBU,CIVIL STATION BANK,PALAKKAD 678 001.
2 V.SINDHU
S/O.THE VELAWORKING AS PART-TIME SCAVANGER,SUB RECORD
OFFICE, OTTAPPALAM,RESIDING AT ERAPPAKODE HOUSE,
2
OP(CAT)No.108 of 2017 2025:KER:17421
THEKKUMURY, KELLEPPULLY, PALAKKAD 678 005.
BY ADVS.SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH
SRI.O.V.RADHAKRISHNAN SR.
SMT.K.RADHAMANI AMMA
THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.11.2024 AND
THE COURT ON 03.03.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
OP(CAT)No.108 of 2017 2025:KER:17421
C.R.
JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The petitioners are the respondents in O.A.No.85 of 2014 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. The said O.A. was one filed by the respondents herein- applicants, invoking the provisions under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, who were then working as part-time Scavenger and part-time Sweeper respectively, under RMS 'CT' Division (Railway Mail Service Calicut Division) under the administrative control of the 5th petitioner-1st respondent Superintendent, RMS 'CT' Division, Kozhikode.
2. The applicants had approached the Tribunal in O.A.No.85 of 2014 seeking a declaration that the delay in making promotion to Group 'D' vacancies remaining unfilled applying 'failing which' clause in column (11) of the Schedule to Annexure A3 Department of Posts (Group D Posts) Recruitment Rules, 2002 (for brevity, the Recruitment Rules, 2002) shall not deny them full-service benefits with effect from the date of their entitlement, which they would have earned but for the failure of the Department to act in accordance with the Recruitment Rules, 4 OP(CAT)No.108 of 2017 2025:KER:17421 2002; and an appropriate order or direction, directing the respondents therein to take immediate steps for promoting the applicants to Group D, in the order of their seniority, against the existing vacancies reserved for casual labourers of RMS 'TV' Division (Railway Mail Service Trivandrum Division), which fall under 25% quota set apart for casual labourers under the Recruitment Rules, 2002 and to promote them to Group D from the respective dates of their entitlement, with all consequential benefits, forthwith and at any rate, within a time frame that may be fixed by the Tribunal.
3. The Tribunal, by Ext.P7 order dated 24.06.2016 allowed O.A.No.85 of 2014, directing respondents 1 to 5, the petitioners herein, to issue appropriate orders promoting the applicants to Group D, in the order of their seniority, against the existing vacancies reserved for casual labourers of RMS 'TV' Division, which existed in 2009 and prior to that date, as admissible under the roster points which fall under 25% quota set apart for casual labourers under the Recruitment Rules, 2002, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order.
5
OP(CAT)No.108 of 2017 2025:KER:17421
4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners-respondents 1 to 5 in O.A.No.85 of 2014 are before this Court in this original petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
5. On 05.04.2017, when this original petition came up for admission, it was admitted on file. Respondents-applicants entered appearance through counsel.
6. Heard arguments of the learned Central Government Counsel for the petitioners-respondents 1 to 5 and the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents-applicants.
7. The learned Central Government Counsel contended that the finding of the Central Administrative Tribunal in Ext.P7 order dated 24.06.2016 in O.A.No.85 of 2014 that the applicants are entitled to be promoted to Group D, in the order of their seniority, as per the Recruitment Rules, 2002, against the existing vacancies reserved for casual labourers of RMS 'TV' Division, which existed in 2009 and prior to that date, is per se arbitrary and patently illegal, which is liable to be set aside by this Court. The applicants, who are only part-time casual labourers appointed in RMS 'CT' Division with effect from 05.11.1998 and 16.05.2000 respectively, would not fall under the employees mentioned in the method of recruitment 6 OP(CAT)No.108 of 2017 2025:KER:17421 prescribed in column (11), clause (ii)(a) to (d) of the Schedule to the Recruitment Rules, 2010, for filling up 25% of the vacancies of Group D posts in the Subordinate Offices in RMS 'TV' Division remaining unfilled after the recruitment from the employees mentioned at Sl.No.2.
8. The learned Central Government Counsel contended further that the applicants, who are part-time casual labourers, can seek promotion only in the vacancies remaining unfilled in the recruiting division or unit and not in the neighbouring division or unit. Therefore, the applicants can seek promotion only in the vacancies, if any, remaining unfilled in RMS 'CT' Division and not in the vacancies, if any, remaining unfilled in RMS 'TV' Division or RMS 'EK' Division (Railway Mail Service Ernakulam Division). The interpretation given by the Tribunal in Ext.P7 order, for the words 'neighbouring division' appearing in the Recruitment Rules, 2002, is per se arbitrary and patently illegal. Even if there were vacancies of Group D for the year 2009 remaining unfilled in RMS 'TV' Division, the applicants would not be eligible for promotion as per the provisions contained in the Recruitment Rules, 2002 or the Recruitment Rules, 2010. Further, the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction while conferring 7 OP(CAT)No.108 of 2017 2025:KER:17421 'full-time casual labourer' status to the applicants, relying on Annexure A9 Government of India, Department of Posts letter dated 17.05.1989, and holding that the claim of the applicants would come under column (11), clause (ii)(c) of the Schedule to the Recruitment Rules, 2002, i.e., 'full-time casual labourers' of the neighbouring division or unit.
9. The learned Central Government Counsel contended further that the direction contained in Annexure A7 judgment of this Court dated 23.12.2009 in W.P.(C)No.28574 of 2009 has no application to the facts of the case on hand, as the applicants in O.A.No.314 of 2008 and connected matters were all Gramin Dak Sevaks, whereas, the respondents herein, who are the applicants in O.A.No.85 of 2014, are part-time casual labourers. Similarly, the applicants in O.A.No.536 of 2022, which was disposed of by Annexure A8 order of the Tribunal, were also Gramin Dak Sevaks. As per the provisions contained in the Recruitment Rules, 2002, 75% of the vacancies remaining unfilled after recruitment from the employees mentioned at Sl.No.2 shall be filed by Gramin Dak Sevaks of the recruiting division or unit where such vacancies occur, failing which by Gramin Dak Sevaks of the neighbouring division or unit by selection-cum-seniority. 8
OP(CAT)No.108 of 2017 2025:KER:17421 But, the respondents herein, who are part-time casual labourers, can be considered only for the vacancies of the recruiting division or unit. Further, the vacancies will have to be filled up as per the 'rules in force'. On the above legal issue, the learned Central Government Counsel relied on the decision of the Apex Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Rajkumar [(2023) 3 SCC 773].
10. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents herein, who are the applicants in O.A.No.85 of 2014, contended that the 1st applicant, who was appointed as Part-time Scavenger in the office of Sub Record Officer, RMS 'CT' Division, Palakkad with effect from 05.11.1998, and the 2nd applicants, who was appointed as Part-time Sweeper in the office of Sub Record Officer, RMS 'CT' Division, Ottapalam with effect from 16.05.2000, served 6,240 days and 4,800 days respectively, ever since their employment. In Ext.P5 additional reply dated 26.09.2015 filed in O.A.No.85 of 2014, the applicants have raised a specific contention that they have to be treated as full-time casual labourers for the purpose of computation of eligible service in terms of the executive direction contained in Annexure A9 Government of India, Department of 9 OP(CAT)No.108 of 2017 2025:KER:17421 Posts letter dated 17.05.1989. Therefore, the applicants are fully eligible and qualified under column (11), clause (ii)(c) of the Schedule to the Recruitment Rules, 2002 (as full-time casual labourers of the neighbouring division or unit) for promotion to Group D, against any vacancies of the year 2009, lying vacant under RMS 'TV' Division. As evident from Annexure A5 letter dated 29.10.2013 obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005, 2 vacancies of the year 2009 are lying vacant under RMS 'TV' Division. Therefore, the Tribunal in Ext.P7 order dated 24.06.2016, rightly found that the claim of the applicants for promotion to Group D in RMS 'TV' Division would come under column (11), clause (ii)(c) of the Schedule to the Recruitment Rules, 2002. The interpretation given in Ext.P7 order of the Tribunal for the words 'neighbouring Division' in the Recruitment Rules, 2002 cannot be said to be either arbitrary or illegal.
11. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondents contended further that the Recruitment Rules, 2010 came into force with effect from 20.12.2010, which have only prospective operation. In Annexure A8 order dated 20.08.2013 in O.A.No.536 of 2012, by placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao [(1983) 3 10 OP(CAT)No.108 of 2017 2025:KER:17421 SCC 284] and also the subsequent decisions of the Apex Court following Y.V. Rangaiah, the Tribunal held that vacancies remain unfilled prior to the promulgation of the revised recruitment rules should be filled up by the method provided as per recruitment rules then in force. In Ext.P2 reply statement, Ext.P4 additional reply statement or Ext.P6 second additional reply statement filed by respondents 1 to 4 in O.A.No.85 of 2014, they have no case that the existing vacancies of Multi- Tasking Staff have to be filled up as per the provisions under the Recruitment Rules, 2010. Therefore, the above issue raised by the learned Central Government Standing Counsel, which is not supported by the pleadings in O.A.No.85 of 2014, is outside the scope of judicial review and is not an error on the merits of the case, as held by a Division Bench of this Court in Pramod Kumar Savita v. Union of India [2019 (3) KHC 889].
12. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondents contended further that the finding of the Tribunal in Annexure A8 order dated 20.08.2013 in O.A.No.536 of 2012 that the applicants therein are entitled to be considered for promotion to Group D against the vacancies of the years 2002 to 2009, in the order of their seniority, as per the Recruitment Rules, 2002, has 11 OP(CAT)No.108 of 2017 2025:KER:17421 attained finality, in the absence of a challenge by the Government of India, Department of Posts by filing an original petition before this Court. Annexure A8 order operates as a binding precedent as far as the petitioners herein are concerned. Therefore, relying on the decision of the Apex Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Rajkumar [(2023) 3 SCC 773] they cannot raise a contention that the existing vacancies of Multi- Tasking Staff could be filled up only as per the 'rules in force'.
13. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondents contended that the decision of the Apex Court in Y.V. Rangaiah v. Sreenivasa Rao [(1983) 3 SCC 284] continues to be a binding judicial precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, in so far as the issues settled till the decision in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Rajkumar [(2023) 3 SCC 773]. According to the learned Senior Counsel, in Rajkumar the Apex Court overruled the decision in Y.V. Rangaiah for the purpose of clarity and certainty. Therefore, the overruling of the said decision is only perspective in operation, which is not intended to unsettle the earlier decisions of the Apex Court rendered following the decision in Y.V. Rangaiah.
12
OP(CAT)No.108 of 2017 2025:KER:17421
14. The pleadings and materials on record would show that the 1st applicant was appointed as a Part-time Scavenger in the office of Sub Record Officer (SRO), RMS 'CT' Division, Palakkad, vide Annexure A1 memo dated 31.10.1998, with a quantum of 2 hours of work per day, with effect from 05.11.1998, in the place of a Part-time Scavenger who resigned. The 2nd applicant was appointed as a Part-time Sweeper in the office of SRO, RMS 'CT' Division, Ottapalam, vide Annexure A2 memo dated 16.05.2000, with a quantum of 5½ hours of work per day, with effect from 16.05.2000, in the existing vacancy.
15. The Recruitment Rules, 2002 were issued, in the exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and in supersession of the Indian Posts and Telegraphs (Class IV Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1970, vide notification dated 23.01.2002 published in the Gazette of India Extra Ordinary dated 23.01.2002, which come into force on the date of its publication. The said Rules regulate the method of recruitment to Group D posts in the Department of Posts under the Ministry of Communications.
16. As per Rule 3 of the Recruitment Rules, 2002, the number of posts, their classification and the scale of pay 13 OP(CAT)No.108 of 2017 2025:KER:17421 attached thereto shall be as specified in columns (2) to (4) of the Schedule annexed thereto. As per Rule 4, the method of recruitment, age limit, qualifications and other matters relating to the said posts shall be as specified in columns (5) to (14) of the Schedule. Rule 5 deals with disqualifications, Rule 6 deals with the requirement to serve in the Army Postal Service, and Rule 7 deals with the power of the Central Government to relax any of the provisions of the Rules with respect to any class or category of persons.
17. As per Part II of the Schedule to the Recruitment Rules, 2002, which deals with the posts in Subordinate Offices, educational qualification prescribed for direct recruits is not applicable for promotion to Group D posts. In Part II of the Schedule, category No.1 is the post of Peons/Letter Box Peons/Mail Peons/Packer/Porter/Runner/Van Peon Orderly/ Gateman Attendant-cum-Khansama/Cleaner in Mail Motor Pumpmen. In column (3), the classification for the said post is 'General Central Service Group D Non-Gazetted'. The method of recruitment for the said post is prescribed in column (11) of the Schedule, which is as follows;
14
OP(CAT)No.108 of 2017 2025:KER:17421 "The method of recruitment shall be in the manner specified below, namely-
A test shall be held to determine the working ability of the candidates holding the post stipulated against Sl.No.2 for filling up the posts. In case suitable candidates and not found to fill up the posts by such test, the remaining posts shall be filled up by the method as specified below:-
(i) 75% of the vacancies remaining unfilled after recruitment from employees mentioned at Sl.No.2 shall be filled up by Gramin Dak Sevaks of the recruiting division or unit where such vacancies occur, failing which Gramin Dak Sevaks of the neighbouring division or unit by selection- cum-seniority.
(ii) 25% of the vacancies remaining unfilled after recruitment from employees mentioned at Sl.No.2 shall be filled up by selection-cum-seniority in the following order:
(a) by casual labourers with temporary status of the recruiting division or unit failing which,
(b) by full-time casual labourers of the recruiting division or unit failing which,
(c) by full-time casual labourers of the neighbouring division or unit failing which,
(d) by part-time casual labourers of the recruiting division or unit failing which,
(iii) by direct recruitment.
Explanation: 1. For Postal Division or Postal Unit, the neighbouring division or unit, as the case may be, shall be the Railway Mail Service Sub Division and vice-versa. 15
OP(CAT)No.108 of 2017 2025:KER:17421
2. The aforementioned test shall be governed by the instructions issued by the Central Government from time to time." (underline supplied)
18. The Assistant Director General (SPN), Ministry of Communications, Department of Posts, issued Annexure A4 letter dated 30.01.2002 to all Principal Chief Postmaster Generals, Chief Postmaster Generals and Controller, Foreign Mails, Mumbai, requesting that the provisions of the Recruitment Rules of 2002 may be brought to the notice of all concerned and to incorporate relevant revised provisions suitably in future notification of vacancies.
19. The Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, Department of Posts, in the exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and in supersession of the Department of Posts (Group D Posts) Recruitment Rules, 2002, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, made Department of Posts Multi-Tasking Staff Recruitment Rules, 2010 (for brevity, the Recruitment Rules, 2010), which was published in the Gazette of India Extra Ordinary dated 20.12.2010, which came into force on the date of its publication. The said Rules regulate the method of recruitment to Multi-Tasking Staff in the 16 OP(CAT)No.108 of 2017 2025:KER:17421 Department of Posts under the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology. Along with Annexure A6 communication dated 28.01.2011, the Assistant Director General (SPN), Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, Department of Posts, forwarded a copy of the Recruitment Rules, 2010 to all Principal Chief Postmaster Generals, Chief Postmaster Generals and Director, Postal Staff College India (PSCI), Ghaziabad, requesting them to bring it to the notice of all concerned.
20. As per Rule 2 of the Recruitment Rules, 2010, the number of posts, their classification and pay band and grade pay/scale of pay attached thereto shall be as specified in columns (2) to (4) of the Schedule annexed thereto. As per Rule 3, the method of recruitment, age limit, qualifications and other matters relating to the said posts shall be as specified in columns (5) to (14) of the Schedule. Rule 4 deals with disqualifications, Rule 5 deals with the requirement to serve in the Army Postal Service, and Rule 6 deals with the power of the Central Government to relax any of the provisions of the Rules with respect to any class or category of persons.
21. In the Schedule to the Recruitment Rules, 2010, category No.1 is the post of Multi-Tasking Staff Part I posts of 17 OP(CAT)No.108 of 2017 2025:KER:17421 Circle and Administrative Offices and category No.2 is the post of Multi-Tasking Staff Part II posts of Subordinate Offices. In column (3), the classification for the said post is 'General Central Service Group C Non-Gazetted Non-Ministerial'. The method of recruitment for the said post is prescribed in column (11) of the Schedule, which is as follows;
(i) 50% by direct recruitment from amongst Gramin Dak Sevaks* of recruiting division or unit, on the basis of selection-cum-seniority;
*Gramin Dak Sevaks are holders of civil posts, but they are outside the regular civil service, due to which their appointment will be by direct recruitment.
(ii) (a) 25% by direct recruitment on the basis of Competitive Examination restricted to the Gramin Dak Sevaks of the division or unit failing which by;
(b) direct recruitment from amongst Gramin Dak Sevaks of the recruiting division or unit on the basis of selection- cum-seniority; (iii) (a) 25% by appointment of casual labourers conferred with temporary status on the basis of selection-cum-seniority failing which by;
(b) appointment of casual labourers engaged on or before 01.09.1993, working for eight full hours in a day, on the basis of selection-cum-seniority failing which by;
(c) appointment of casual labourers conferred with temporary status in the neighboring division or unit on the basis of selection-cum-seniority failing which by; 18
OP(CAT)No.108 of 2017 2025:KER:17421
(d) appointment of casual labourers engaged on or before 01.09.1993, working for eight full hours in a day of the neighboring division or unit on the basis of selection-cum- seniority failing which by;
(e) appointment of part-time casual labourers engaged on or before 01.09.1993 of the recruiting division or unit on the basis of selection-cum-seniority failing which by;
(f) by direct recruitment from amongst Gramin Dak Sevaks on the basis of their seniority in the division or unit. Failing (i), (ii) and (iii) above by direct recruitment from open market.
(If there are more than one neighboring division or unit, the senior most casual labourer of that status amongst them shall be appointed) Explanation:-1. For Postal Division or Unit, the neighboring division or unit, as the case may be, shall be the Railway Mail Service Sub Division and vice-versa.
2. The above mentioned examination shall be governed by the instructions issued by the Department of Posts regarding the shortlisting criteria of the applicants from open market, syllabus and pattern of the test, etc. from time to time."
22. The Recruitment Rules, 2010 came into force on 20.12.2010, as provided under Rule 1(2), on the date of its publication in the Gazette of India. As per Annexure A5 reply dated 29.10.2013 obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005, there were two vacancies of Group D Posts of the year 2009 in RMS 'TV' Division, in the category casual labourer. In 19 OP(CAT)No.108 of 2017 2025:KER:17421 Annexure A5 reply, it is stated that 2 unfilled Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS) vacancies pertaining to RMS 'TV' Division are available under the promotion of part-time casual labourer/casual labourer.
23. Before the Tribunal, the applicants relied on Annexure A7 judgment dated 23.12.2009 in W.P.(C)No.28574 of 2009 and connected cases, whereby this Court directed the Department of Posts to consider other eligible candidates in neighbouring recruiting division or unit in case of non-availability of candidates/members belonging to the recruiting division. A similar issue was considered by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench in Annexure A8 order dated 20.08.2013 in O.A.No.536 of 2012, wherein it was held that the applicants therein are entitled to be considered for appointment in Group D Posts, against the vacancies of the years 2002 to 2009, in the order of seniority as per the Recruitment Rules, 2002, and if found suitable, their appointment as such would be notional from the date of occurrence of vacancy till they actually join the said post.
24. Before the Tribunal, the specific stand taken in Ext.P2 reply statement dated 03.07.2015 filed by respondents 1 to 5 20 OP(CAT)No.108 of 2017 2025:KER:17421 was that as there were sufficient numbers of Gramin Dak Sevaks for consideration for appointment as Multi-Tasking Staff, the question of offering vacancies to part-time casual labourers does not arise at all. As per Recruitment Rules, 2010, as amended on 26.09.2011 and 28.06.2012, 25% of the vacancies are to be filled up by departmental recruitment from Gramin Dak Sevaks on the basis of selection-cum-seniority. Next 25% by direct recruitment on the basis of competitive examination restricted to Gramin Dak Sevaks and 25% by the casual labourers appointed on or before 01.09.1993. As both the applicants are part-time casual labourers appointed after 01.09.1993, they are not eligible for consideration for Multi-Tasking Staff at all as per the Recruitment Rules, 2010. While implementing the order in O.A.No.312 of 2008 and other similar cases, vacancies for the years 2006 to 2009 were filled up, in which 25% of the vacancies were given to full-time casual labourers, as per the provisions contained in the Recruitment Rules, 2002. As there were sufficient full-time casual labourers in RMS 'CT' Division, part- time casual labourers did not come into the zone of consideration at all.
21
OP(CAT)No.108 of 2017 2025:KER:17421
25. In Ext.P2 reply statement filed in O.A.No.85 of 2014, respondents 1 to 5 raised a contention that the direction contained in Annexure A7 judgment of this Court dated 23.12.2009 in W.P.(C)No.28574 of 2009 has no application to the facts of the case on hand, as the applicants in O.A.No.314 of 2008 and connected matters were all Gramin Dak Sevaks, whereas, the applicants in O.A.No.85 of 2014, the respondents herein, are part-time casual labourers. The Recruitment Rules, 2010 was published in the Gazette of India Extra Ordinary dated 20.12.2010. Recruitment for the vacancies occurring at a particular time should be governed by the recruitment rules then applicable. In Annexure A8 order, the Tribunal relied on the order dated 16.06.2012 in O.A.No.551 of 2011. The applicants in O.A.No.551 of 2011 were considered against the vacancies which occurred prior to 20.12.2010. In the instant case, the respondents herein, who are the applicants in O.A.No.85 of 2014, are not eligible to be considered for the vacancies of the neighbouring division or unit, as they are part-time casual labourers. Moreover, the applicants in O.A.No.536 of 2012 were Gramin Dak Sevaks.
22
OP(CAT)No.108 of 2017 2025:KER:17421
26. Before the Tribunal, the applicants filed Ext.P3
rejoinder dated 07.06.2015, reiterating the contentions raised in O.A.No.85 of 2014. According to them, the vacancies in RMS 'TV' Division are lying vacant for want of casual labourers. There are no casual labourers in RMS 'TV' Division and RMS 'EK' Division. Therefore, 2 vacancies remaining unfilled in RMS 'TV' Division for want of casual labourers are to be filled up by appointing casual labourers from RMS 'CT' Division. The applicants are the only casual labourers under RMS to be appointed to the post of Group D against the above 2 vacancies. As these vacancies occurred prior to the amended Recruitment Rules and remained unfilled as on the date of filing of O.A.No.85 of 2014, the applicants ought to have been appointed to those vacancies under the Recruitment Rules, 2002.
27. In view of the stand taken by the applicants in Ext.P3 rejoinder, respondents 1 to 5-petitioners herein filed Ext.P4 additional reply statement dated 03.07.2015, wherein it is stated that the recruiting division or unit of both the applicants is RMS 'CT' Division. The vacancies for the year 2006-09 under RMS 'CT' Division were filled up while implementing the judgement in OA No. 312 of 2008. As per the Recruitment Rules, 2002, part-time 23 OP(CAT)No.108 of 2017 2025:KER:17421 casual labourers can be considered only for the vacancies of the recruiting division or unit, i.e., RMS 'CT' Division.
28. The applicants have filed Ext.P5 additional rejoinder dated 26.09.2015 stating that they are part-time employees of RMS 'CT' Division. There are 2 unfilled vacancies of casual labourers under RMS 'TV' Division. Clause (c) in column (11) of the Schedule to the Recruitment Rules, 2002, provides that 25% of the vacancies remaining unfilled after the recruitment of employees mentioned at Sl.No.2 and in the absence of categories (a) and (b) such of those vacancies shall be filled up by full-time casual labourers of the neighbouring division or unit. Annexure A9 Government of India, Department of Posts, letter No.65-24/88-SPB.I. dated 17.05.1989 provides that for the purpose of computation of eligible service, half of the service rendered as part-time casual labourer should be taken into account. If a part-time casual labourer has served 480 days in a period of 2 years, he will be treated, for the purpose of recruitment, to have completed one year of service as full-time casual labourer. The applicants have completed more than 16/15 years of service. They served more than 480 days within a period of 2 years. In view of Annexure A9 Government of India 24 OP(CAT)No.108 of 2017 2025:KER:17421 letter dated 17.05.1989, the applicants are to be treated as full- time casual labourers and in which event, they are fully eligible and qualified to be appointed as Group D against the vacancies lying vacant under RMS 'TV' Division. As per Annexure A10 reply dated 05.11.2014 furnished to one C.M. Ravindran under the Right to Information Act, 2005, there are yet another 5 vacancies under RMS 'CT' Division. The applicants have a legal right to be considered against the above 5 posts also.
29. In Ext.P6 second additional reply statement dated 30.10.2015, respondents 1 to 5-petitioners herein reiterated that the applicants, being part-time casual labourers, can be considered only for the vacancies of the recruiting division or unit, as per the Recruitment Rules, 2002. They are not eligible for consideration against the vacancies lying vacant under RMS 'TV' Division. It was pointed out that, Annexure A9 is only for the purpose of computation of eligible service. The applicants cannot be treated as full-time casual labourers based on Annexure A9, which provides for counting service of a full-time casual labourer and not anything about conferring status as a full-time casual labourer. Annexure A9 has no application in the case of the applicants. The applicants are not full-time casual labourers. As 25 OP(CAT)No.108 of 2017 2025:KER:17421 stated in Annexure A10 reply, 5 MTS posts under RMS 'CT' Division are kept for abolition, which are not vacancies to be filled up. Hence, the applicants have no right to claim for the posts which are kept for abolition.
30. In the impugned order of the Tribunal, i.e., Ext.P7 order dated 24.06.2016 in O.A.No.85 of 2014, the point for consideration was whether the applicants are entitled to get promotion to Group D vacancies remaining unfilled in RMS 'TV' Division under 25% quota set apart for casual labourers as per the Recruitment Rules, 2002. After referring to Annexure A9 Government of India, Department of Posts letter dated 17.05.1989 produced by the applicants, along with Ext.P5 additional rejoinder dated 26.09.2015, the Tribunal held that the applicants who had served for more than 480 days as part-time casual labourers in a period of 2 years will have to be treated, for the purpose of recruitment, completed one year of service as full-time casual labourers. Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the Recruitment Rules, 2002 and Annexure A9 Department of Posts letter dated 17.05.1989 the applicants are entitled to be considered as full-time casual labourers and their claim would fall under 25% of the vacancies remaining unfilled after 26 OP(CAT)No.108 of 2017 2025:KER:17421 recruitment of the candidates stipulated against Sl.No.2, as provided in clause (ii)(c) in column (11) of the Schedule to the Recruitment Rules, 2002, i.e., full-time casual labourers of the neighbouring division or unit. The Tribunal found that there are no full-time casual labourers in RMS 'TV' Division to fill up 25% of vacancies under clause (ii)(c) and those vacancies remain vacant.
31. In Ext.P7 order, the Tribunal considered the question as to whether the applicants are to be treated as casual labourers of the neighbouring division or unit. The Tribunal noticed that there are only three divisions in Kerala, namely, Trivandrum, Ernakulam and Calicut. The applicants belong to Calicut Division, i.e., RMS 'CT' Division. The vacancies are in Trivandrum Division, i.e., RMS 'TV' Division. The Tribunal held that the word 'neighboring division', though used in singular, should be construed as plural also. Since there is no case for the respondents that there are eligible full-time casual labourers in Ernakulam Division, i.e., RMS 'EK' Division, the claim made by the applicants who belong to the next division, i.e., RMS 'CT' Division cannot be simply rejected. It would be highly technical to hold that the applicants are not casual labourers of the 27 OP(CAT)No.108 of 2017 2025:KER:17421 neighbouring division. As per Explanation to clause (ii) in column (11) of the Schedule to the Recruitment Rules, 2002 for Postal Division or Unit, the neighbouring division or unit, as the case may be, shall be the Railway Mail Service Sub-Division and vice versa. Therefore, the claim of the applicants to RMS 'TV' Division would be well within the Recruitment Rules, 2002.
32. In Ext.P7 order, the Tribunal noticed that 2 vacancies of Group D in RMS 'TV' Division, which are vacancies of the year 2009, remain unfilled. Those 2 vacancies are to be filled up by 25% promotion quota. Those vacancies are lying vacant as there are no casual labourers in RMS 'TV' Division. According to the applicants, they, who must be deemed to have acquired the status of full-time casual labourers of RMS 'CT' Division, are entitled to be promoted to the post of Group D against the 2 vacancies of RMS 'TV' Division. The Tribunal held that, since the vacancies are of the year 2009, the Recruitment Rules, 2002 alone would apply and not the Recruitment Rules, 2010.
33. In paragraph 11 of Ext.P7 order, the Tribunal considered the contention raised by respondents 1 to 5 that the vacancies which arose under RMS 'CT' Division for the years 2006-09 under 25% promotion quota, were given to full-time 28 OP(CAT)No.108 of 2017 2025:KER:17421 casual labourers as per the Recruitment Rules, 2002 and since those vacancies were already filled up while implementing the order of the Tribunal in O.A.No.312 of 2008 and similar other cases, the claim made by the applicants for promotion against the vacancies of RMS 'TV' Division cannot be sustained. In that context, the Tribunal considered the plea of the applicants relying on Annexure A9 Department of Posts letter dated 17.05.1989 that the applicants must be deemed to have acquired the status of full-time casual labourers since they have worked for more than 480 days as stipulated in the said letter. The Tribunal found that, since clause (ii)(c) in column (11) of the Schedule to the Recruitment Rules, 2002 makes the position clear that 25% of the vacancies remaining unfilled, after recruitment of the candidates stipulated against Sl.No.2, shall be filled up by selection-cum-seniority in the order specified therein, and since there were no casual labourers with temporary status or full-time casual labourers of the recruiting division, the claim made by the applicants that they being full-time casual labourers of the neighbouring division should certainly be considered. The narrow interpretation which is attempted to be given by the respondents pertaining to the words 'neighbouring division' that 29 OP(CAT)No.108 of 2017 2025:KER:17421 the applicants can, if at all, seek promotion only in Ernakulam Division, i.e., RMS 'EK' Division, which is the nearest neighbouring division, and not in RMS 'TV' Division, cannot be accepted.
34. In Ext.P7 order, the Tribunal found that when 2 vacancies which arose prior to 2009 in RMS 'TV' Division are lying unfilled, there is no justification for denying the applicants the promotion to the post of Group D on 25% promotion quota. The interpretation in such cases should be in favour of the employees for sustaining their legitimate claim and not otherwise. Therefore, the Tribunal by Ext.P7 order dated allowed O.A.No.85 of 2014, directing respondents 1 to 5, the petitioners herein, to issue appropriate orders promoting the applicants to Group D, in the order of their seniority, against the existing vacancies reserved for casual labourers of RMS 'TV' Division, which existed in 2009 and prior to that date, as admissible under the roster points which fall under 25% quota set apart for casual labourers under the Recruitment Rules, 2002, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order.
35. As already noticed hereinbefore, the method of recruitment prescribed in column (11) of the Schedule to the 30 OP(CAT)No.108 of 2017 2025:KER:17421 Recruitment Rules, 2002 for Group D vacancies in Subordinate Offices remaining unfilled after recruitment of the candidates stipulated against Sl.No.2 is provided in clauses (i) to (iii) in column (11) of the Schedule to the Recruitment Rules, 2002. Clause (i) deals with 75% of such vacancies earmarked for Gramin Dak Sevaks of the recruiting division or unit, failing which Gramin Dak Sevaks of the neighbouring division or unit. Clause (ii) deals with 25% of such vacancies earmarked for casual labourers, in the manner provided in sub-clauses (a) to
(d) of clause (ii). Clause (iii) provides for direct recruitment to the vacancies remaining unfilled under 25% quota in clause (ii) due to the non-availability of casual labourers falling under the categories enumerated in sub-clauses (a) to (d). When sub- clauses (a) to (d) of clause (ii) in column (11) of the Schedule to the Recruitment Rules, 2002 contemplate recruitment within the 'recruiting division or unit' in the case of casual labourers falling under sub-clauses (a), (b) and (d) and recruitment within the 'neighbouring division or unit' in the case of casual labourers falling under sub-clause (c), the Tribunal committed a grave error in arriving at a conclusion that the word 'neighbouring division', though used in singular in sub-clause (c) of clause (ii), 31 OP(CAT)No.108 of 2017 2025:KER:17421 should be construed as plural also, even ignoring the definition to 'neighbouring division or unit' given in the Explanation to clause
(ii). Therefore, the applicants, who are casual labourers of RMS 'CT' Division, cannot be treated as casual labourers of the 'neighbouring division of unit', for the 2 vacancies of Group D in RMS 'TV' Division, under sub-clause (c) of clause (ii), even if their claim based on Annexure A9 Department of Posts letter dated 17.05.1989, for treating them as full-time casual labourers, which was raised for the first time in Ext.P5 additional rejoinder dated 26.09.2015, is accepted. In that view of the matter, we do not propose to consider the rival contentions on the applicability of Annexure A9 in the case of the applicants, who were appointed as part-time casual labourers with effect from 05.11.1998 and 16.05.2000.
36. Before the Tribunal, the applicants contended that, in view of the law laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in Mohanan v. Director of Homeopathy [2006 (3) KLT 641], the vacancies which were in existence prior to the date of coming into force of the Recruitment Rules, 2010, i.e., the vacancies that existed prior to 20.12.2010, have to be filled up in accordance with the provisions contained in the Recruitment 32 OP(CAT)No.108 of 2017 2025:KER:17421 Rules, 2002. In Mohanan [2006 (3) KLT 641], the Full Bench relied on the decision of a Two-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao [(1983) 3 SCC 284].
37. In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Rajkumar [(2023) 3 SCC 773] the question that came up for consideration before a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court was whether appointments to the public posts that fell vacant prior to the amendment of the Rules would be governed by the old Rules or the new Rules. Civil Appeal Nos.9746-47 of 2011 before the Apex Court arise out of the judgment of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh - Raj Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh [2009 SCC OnLine HP 3004] - allowing the writ petition and directing the State to consider the case of the writ petitioners, respondents 1 to 3 before the Apex Court, for promotion under the Rules that existed when the vacancies arose and not as per the subsequently amended Rules. That direction was based on the decision of the Apex Court in Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao [(1983) 3 SCC 284]. The Three-Judge Bench noticed a number of decisions of the Apex Court that have followed Y.V. Rangaiah [(1983) 3 SCC 284] and far more 33 OP(CAT)No.108 of 2017 2025:KER:17421 decisions that have distinguished it. Therefore, the Three-Judge Bench decided examine the issue afresh.
38. In Rajkumar [(2023) 3 SCC 773] the Three-Judge Bench noticed that the question that arose in Y.V. Rangaiah [(1983) 3 SCC 284] related to the mandatory obligation under the old Rules to prepare an approved list of candidates and also the number of persons to be placed in the list as per the vacancies available. It is in this context that the Court observed that the vacancies would be governed by the old Rules. The said decision is not to be taken to be laying down an invariable principle that vacancies occurring prior to the amendment of the rules are to be governed by the old Rules. In the said decision, the Court has not identified any vested right of an employee, as has been read into that judgment in certain subsequent cases. However, as the observation in Y.V. Rangaiah [(1983) 3 SCC 284] has been construed as a general principle that vacancies arising prior to the amendment of rules are to be filled only as per the old Rules, the Three- Judge Bench found it is necessary to examine the correct position of law. For that purpose, the Three-Judge Bench 34 OP(CAT)No.108 of 2017 2025:KER:17421 examined the constitutional position and the 'status' that governs the relationship between an employee and the State.
39. In Rajkumar [(2023) 3 SCC 773] the Three-Judge Bench noticed that though the relationship between the employee and the State originates in contract, by virtue of the constitutional constraint, coupled with the legislative and executive rules governing the service, the relation attains a unique position. Identifying such a relationship as being a 'status', as against a contract, the Court in Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India [AIR 1967 SC 1889] explained what such a 'status' constitutes (AIR pp. 1894-95, paras 6-7). In the said decision, it was held that the legal position of a Government servant is more one of status than of contract. The hallmark of status is the attachment to a legal relationship of rights and duties imposed by the public law and not by mere agreement of the parties. The emolument of the government servant and his terms of service are governed by statute or statutory rules which may be unilaterally altered by the Government without the consent of the employee. It is true that Article 311 of the Constitution of India imposes constitutional restrictions upon the power of removal granted to the President 35 OP(CAT)No.108 of 2017 2025:KER:17421 and the Governor under Article 310. But it is obvious that the relationship between the Government and its servant is not like an ordinary contract of service between a master and servant. The legal relationship is something entirely different, something in the nature of status. It is much more than a purely contractual relationship voluntarily entered into between the parties. The duties of status are fixed by the law and in the enforcement of these duties, society has an interest. Therefore, the employee has no vested contractual right in regard to the terms of his service. The principle laid down in Roshan Lal Tandon [AIR 1967 SC 1889] was followed in Union of India v. Arun Kumar Roy [(1986) 1 SCC 675], A. Satyanarayana v. S. Purushotham [(2008) 5 SCC 416] and Brij Mohan Lal v. Union of India [(2012) 6 SCC 502]. In Paras.27.1 to 22.7 of the decision [SCC pages 793 and 794] the Three-Judge Bench enumerated the propositions emanating from the principles laid down in the above precedents. Paras.27 and 27.1. to 27.7 of the decision read thus;
"27. The principle laid down in Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India [AIR 1967 SC 1889] is followed in a number of decisions of this Court. Union of India v. Arun Kumar Roy [(1986) 1 SCC 675]; A. Satyanarayana v.36
OP(CAT)No.108 of 2017 2025:KER:17421 S. Purushotham [(2008) 5 SCC 416]; Brij Mohan Lal v. Union of India [(2012) 6 SCC 502]. The following are the propositions emanating from the principles laid down in these precedents:
27.1. Except as expressly provided in the Constitution, every person employed in the civil service of the Union or the States holds office during the pleasure of the President or the Governor (Article 310). Tenure at pleasure is a constitutional policy for rendering services under the State for public interest and for the public good, as explained in Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, [(1985) 3 SCC 398].
27.2. The Union and the States are empowered to make laws and rules under Articles 309, 310 and 311 to regulate the recruitment, conditions of service, tenure and termination. The rights and obligations are no longer determined by consent of the parties but by the legal relationship of rights and duties imposed by statute or the rules. The services, thus, attain a status. 27.3. The hallmark of status is in the legal rights and obligations imposed by laws that may be framed and altered unilaterally by the Government without the consent of the employee.
27.4. In view of the dominance of rules that govern the relationship between the Government and its employee, all matters concerning employment, conditions of service including termination are governed by the rules. There are no rights outside the provision of the rules. 27.5. In a recruitment by the State, there is no right to be appointed but only a right to be considered fairly. The 37 OP(CAT)No.108 of 2017 2025:KER:17421 process of recruitment will be governed by the rules framed for the said purpose.
27.6. Conditions of service of a public servant, including matters of promotion and seniority are governed by the extant rules. There are no vested rights independent of the rules governing the service. Khalid Rizvi v. Union of India [(1993) Supp.3 SCC 575]; Hardev Singh v. Union of India [(2011) 10 SCC 121].
27.7. With the enactment of laws and issuance of rules governing the services, Governments are equally bound by the mandate of the rule. There is no power or discretion outside the provision of the rules governing the services and the actions of the State are subject to judicial review.
Rajasthan Public Service Commission v. Chanan Ram [(1998) 4 SCC 202]."
40. In Rajkumar [(2023) 3 SCC 773], in view of the aforesaid principles flowing from the constitutional status of a person in employment with the State, the Three-Judge Bench held that the observations in Y.V. Rangaiah [(1983) 3 SCC 284] that posts which fell vacant prior to the amendment of Rules would be governed by old Rules and not by new Rules do not reflect the correct position of law. The status of a Government employee involves a relationship governed exclusively by rules and that there are no rights outside these rules that govern the services. Further, the Court in Y.V. 38 OP(CAT)No.108 of 2017 2025:KER:17421 Rangaiah [(1983) 3 SCC 284] has not justified its observation by locating such a right on any principle or on the basis of the new Rules. In fact, the case of K. Ramulu v. S. Suryaprakash Rao [(1997) 3 SCC 59] there was a specific requirement in the new amended Rules to fill up the old vacancies as per the new amended Rules. The repealed rules had a provision for filling up the past vacancies as per the new Rules. Also, in P. Ganeshwar Rao v. State of A.P. [(1988) Supp. SCC 740] the intendment was to fill the vacancies as per the old Rules. As there are a large number of judgments which followed Y.V. Rangaiah [(1983) 3 SCC 284] under the assumption that an overarching principle has been laid down in in the said decision, the Three-Judge Bench found it necessary to examine the cases that followed Y.V. Rangaiah [(1983) 3 SCC 284]. After analysing the said decisions in paragraphs 29 to 48 [SCC pages 794 to 802], the Three-Judge Bench found that except in P. Ganeshwar Rao [(1988) Supp. SCC 740], which not only followed Y.V. Rangaiah [(1983) 3 SCC 284] but also observed that the new Rules enabled the vacancies to be filled as per the Rules that existed prior to the amendment, all the other judgments adopted the principle Y.V. Rangaiah [(1983) 3 SCC 284] and directed 39 OP(CAT)No.108 of 2017 2025:KER:17421 appointments to be made as per the rules that existed when the vacancies arose. These cases do not discuss any source of such a right of a Government employee. There is also no reference to any rule, be it old or new, to enable the effectuation of such a right. None of these cases refer to the constitutional position of status or the principle laid down in Roshan Lal Tandon [AIR 1967 SC 1889].
41. In Rajkumar [(2023) 3 SCC 773], in paragraphs 51 to 81 [SCC pages 803 to 816], the Three-Judge Bench analysed the decisions in which Y.V. Rangaiah [(1983) 3 SCC 284] has been distinguished, adopting different reasons for not following the principle laid down in that decision. The Three-Judge Bench observed that a review of the said fifteen decisions would demonstrate that the Court has been consistently carving out exceptions to the broad proposition formulated in Y.V. Rangaiah [(1983) 3 SCC 284]. In Paras.82.1 to 82.5 of the decision [SCC page 817], the Three-Judge Bench enumerated the findings in those judgments, that have a direct bearing on the proposition formulated by Y.V. Rangaiah [(1983) 3 SCC 284]. Paras.82.1 to 82.5 of the decision of the decision of the Three-Judge Bench read thus;
40
OP(CAT)No.108 of 2017 2025:KER:17421 "82.1. There is no rule of universal application that vacancies must be necessarily filled on the basis of the law which existed on the date when they arose, Y.V. Rangaiah [(1983) 3 SCC 284] must be understood in the context of the rules involved therein. Deepak Agarwal v. State of U.P. [(2011) 6 SCC 725] para.26; Union of India v. Krishna Kumar [(2019) 4 SCC 319] para.10.
82.2. It is now a settled proposition of law that a candidate has a right to be considered in the light of the existing rules, which implies the 'rule in force' as on the date consideration takes place. The right to be considered for promotion occurs on the date of consideration of the eligible candidates. Deepak Agarwal v. State of U.P. [(2011) 6 SCC 725] para.26; Union of India v.
Krishna Kumar [(2019) 4 SCC 319] para.10.
82.3. The Government is entitled to take a conscious policy decision not to fill up the vacancies arising prior to the amendment of the rules. The employee does not acquire any vested right to being considered for promotion in accordance with the repealed rules in view of the policy decision taken by the Government. K. Ramulu v. S. Suryaprakash Rao [(1997) 3 SCC 59] paras.12 and 13; Shyama Charan Dash v. State of Orissa [(2003) 4 SCC 218] para.9; State of Punjab v. Arun Kumar Aggarwal [(2007) 10 SCC 402] para.38; Deepak Agarwal v. State of U.P. [(2011) 6 SCC 725] para.28. There is no obligation for the Government to make appointments as per the old Rules in the event of restructuring of the cadre is intended for efficient working 41 OP(CAT)No.108 of 2017 2025:KER:17421 of the unit. G. Venkateshwara Rao v. Union of India [(1999) 8 SCC 455] para.4. The only requirement is that the policy decisions of the Government must be fair and reasonable and must be justified on the touchstone of Article 14. Rajasthan Public Service Commission v.
Chanan Ram [(1998) 4 SCC 202] para.15; K. Ramulu v. S. Suryaprakash Rao [(1997) 3 SCC 59] para.15.
82.4. The principle in Y.V. Rangaiah [(1983) 3 SCC 284] need not be applied merely because posts were created, as it is not obligatory for the appointing authority to fill up the posts immediately. Delhi Judicial Services Association v. Delhi High Court [(2001) 5 SCC 145] para.5.
82.5. When there is no statutory duty cast upon the State to consider appointments to vacancies that existed prior to the amendment, the State cannot be directed to consider the cases. Deepak Agarwal v. State of U.P. [(2011) 6 SCC 725] para.25."
42. In Rajkumar [(2023) 3 SCC 773] the Three-Judge Bench noticed that the observations made in the fifteen decisions that have distinguished Y.V. Rangaiah [(1983) 3 SCC 284] demonstrate that the wide principle enunciated therein is substantially watered-down. Almost all the decisions that distinguished Y.V. Rangaiah [(1983) 3 SCC 284] hold that there is no rule of universal application to the effect that vacancies must necessarily be filled on the basis of law that 42 OP(CAT)No.108 of 2017 2025:KER:17421 existed on the date when they arose. This only implies that decision in Y.V. Rangaiah [(1983) 3 SCC 284] is confined to the facts of that case. The decision in Deepak Agarwal v. State of U.P. [(2011) 6 SCC 725] is a complete departure from the principle in Y.V. Rangaiah [(1983) 3 SCC 284] inasmuch as the Court has held that a candidate has a right to be considered in the light of the existing rule. That is the rule in force on the date the consideration takes place. This enunciation is followed in many subsequent decisions including that of Union of India v. Krishna Kumar [(2019) 4 SCC 319]. In fact, in that decision the Court held that there is only a 'right to be considered for promotion in accordance with rules which prevail on the date on which consideration for promotion takes place'. In view of the consistent findings in the aforesaid fifteen decisions that Y.V. Rangaiah [(1983) 3 SCC 284] must be seen in the context of its own facts, coupled with the declarations therein that there is no rule of universal application to the effect that vacancies must necessarily be filled on the basis of rules which existed on the date on which they arose, the Three-Judge Bench concluded that the decision in Y.V. Rangaiah [(1983) 3 SCC 284] is impliedly overruled. However, as there is no declaration 43 OP(CAT)No.108 of 2017 2025:KER:17421 of law to this effect, it continues to be cited as a precedent and the Court has been distinguishing it on some ground or the other, as indicated hereinabove. Therefore, for clarity and certainty, the Three-Judge Bench found it necessary to hold as follows at paras.85.1 and 85.2 [SCC page 818];
"85.1. The statement in Y.V. Rangaiah [(1983) 3 SCC 284] that 'the vacancies which occurred prior to the amended Rules would be governed by the old Rules and not by the amended Rules', does not reflect the correct proposition of law governing services under the Union and the States under Part XIV of the Constitution. It is hereby overruled.
85.2. The rights and obligations of persons serving the Union and the States are to be sourced from the rules governing the services."
43. In Rajkumar [(2023) 3 SCC 773], on the facts of the case on hand, the Three-Judge Bench held that there is no right for an employee outside the rules governing the services. As laid down in the Constitution Bench decisions in Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel [(1985) 3 SCC 398] and more particularly the decision in Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India [AIR 1967 SC 1889] the services under the State are in the nature of a status, a hallmark of which is the need of the State to unilaterally alter the rules to subserve the public 44 OP(CAT)No.108 of 2017 2025:KER:17421 interest. The 2006 Rules, governing the services of the respondents to 3 therein came into force immediately after they were notified. There is no provision in the said rules to enable them to be considered as per the 1966 Rules. The matter must end here. There is no other right that they can claim for such consideration.
44. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondents- applicants contended that the decision of the Apex Court in Y.V. Rangaiah [(1983) 3 SCC 284] continues to be a binding judicial precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, in so far as the issues settled till the decision in Rajkumar [(2023) 3 SCC 773]. In Rajkumar the Apex Court overruled the decision in Y.V. Rangaiah for the purpose of clarity and certainty. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel contended that the overruling of the said decision is only perspective in operation, which is not intended to unsettle the earlier decisions of the Apex Court rendered following the decision in Y.V. Rangaiah.
45. In Rajkumar [(2023) 3 SCC 773], in view of the principles laid down in Roshan Lal Tandon [AIR 1967 SC 1889], which was followed in Arun Kumar Roy [(1986) 1 SCC 45 OP(CAT)No.108 of 2017 2025:KER:17421 675], A. Satyanarayana [(2008) 5 SCC 416], Brij Mohan Lal [(2012) 6 SCC 502], etc., the Three-Judge Bench held that the observations in Y.V. Rangaiah [(1983) 3 SCC 284] that posts which fell vacant prior to the amendment of Rules would be governed by old Rules and not by new Rules do not reflect the correct position of law. The status of a Government employee involves a relationship governed exclusively by rules and that there are no rights outside these rules that govern the services. Further, the Court in Y.V. Rangaiah [(1983) 3 SCC 284] has not justified its observation by locating such a right on any principle or on the basis of the new Rules.
46. In Rajkumar [(2023) 3 SCC 773], the Three-Judge Bench noticed that there are a large number of judgments which followed Y.V. Rangaiah [(1983) 3 SCC 284] under the assumption that an overarching principle has been laid down in in the said decision. The said judgments do not discuss any source of such a right of a Government employee. None of those cases refer to the constitutional position of status or the principle laid down in Roshan Lal Tandon [AIR 1967 SC 1889].
47. In Rajkumar [(2023) 3 SCC 773] the Three-Judge Bench analysed fifteen decisions in which Y.V. Rangaiah 46 OP(CAT)No.108 of 2017 2025:KER:17421 [(1983) 3 SCC 284] has been distinguished, adopting different reasons for not following the principle laid down in that decision, consistently carving out exceptions to the broad proposition formulated in that decision. In view of the consistent findings in the aforesaid fifteen decisions that Y.V. Rangaiah [(1983) 3 SCC 284] must be seen in the context of its own facts, coupled with the declarations therein that there is no rule of universal application to the effect that vacancies must necessarily be filled on the basis of rules which existed on the date on which they arose, the Three-Judge Bench concluded that the decision in Y.V. Rangaiah [(1983) 3 SCC 284] is impliedly overruled.
48. In Rajkumar [(2023) 3 SCC 773], the Three-Judge Bench noticed that, as there is no declaration of law to the effect that the decision in Y.V. Rangaiah [(1983) 3 SCC 284] is impliedly overruled, the said decision continues to be cited as a precedent and the Court has been distinguishing it on some ground or the other. Therefore, for clarity and certainty, the Three-Judge Bench found it necessary to hold that the statement in Y.V. Rangaiah [(1983) 3 SCC 284] that 'the vacancies which occurred prior to the amended Rules would be governed by the old Rules and not by the amended Rules', does not reflect 47 OP(CAT)No.108 of 2017 2025:KER:17421 the correct proposition of law governing services under the Union and the States under Part XIV of the Constitution. After overruling the said decision, the Three-Judge Bench held further that the rights and obligations of persons serving the Union and the States are to be sourced from the rules governing the services.
49. In the above circumstances, the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents-applicants that the decision of the Apex Court in Y.V. Rangaiah [(1983) 3 SCC 284] continues to be a binding judicial precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, in so far as the issues settled till the decision in Rajkumar [(2023) 3 SCC 773] and the further contention that in Rajkumar the Apex Court overruled the decision in Y.V. Rangaiah for the purpose of clarity and certainty and the overruling of the said decision is only perspective in operation, which is not intended to unsettle the earlier decisions of the Apex Court rendered following the decision in Y.V. Rangaiah, can only be rejected as absolutely untenable, and we do so.
50. As discernable from the pleadings on record, in the instant case as well both sides proceeded under the assumption 48 OP(CAT)No.108 of 2017 2025:KER:17421 that an overreaching principle had been laid down in Y.V. Rangaiah [(1983) 3 SCC 284] that posts which fell vacant prior to the amendment of Rules would be governed by old Rules and not by new Rules. In Annexure A7 judgment of this Court dated 23.12.2009 in W.P.(C)No.32491 of 2009, another decision relied on by the applicants, this Court rejected the contention raised by the Department that the vacancies under clause (ii) in column (ii) of the Schedule to the Recruitment Rules, 2002 remaining unfilled in a particular year would vanish by the end of the year. The said decision is one rendered prior to the coming into force of the Recruitment Rules, 2010. Annexure A8 order dated 25.08.2013 of the Tribunal in O.A.No.536 of 2012, an order relied on by the applicants, is one rendered following an earlier order of the Tribunal in O.A.No.551 of 2011, which is one rendered following the decision in Y.V. Rangaiah [(1983) 3 SCC 284]. In view of the law laid down by the Three-Judge Bench in Rajkumar [(2023) 3 SCC 773] the applicants cannot contend that, in view of Annexure A8 order, the petitioners herein are bound to fill up the vacancies in Group D, which existed prior to 20.12.2010, the date of coming into force of the Recruitment Rules, 2010, as per the Recruitment Rules, 2002. 49
OP(CAT)No.108 of 2017 2025:KER:17421 The law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Pramod Kumar Savita v. Union of India [2019 (3) KHC 889], in the context of the exercise of review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in no manner support the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents-applicants that the contention advanced by the learned Central Government Counsel on the applicability of the Recruitment Rules, 2010, relying on the law laid down by the Three-Judge Bench in Rajkumar [(2023) 3 SCC 773], is outside the scope of scrutiny of this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, as per the decision of the Constitution Bench in L. Chandrakumar v. Union of India [(1997) 3 SCC 261].
51. In the instant case, the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, Department of Posts, in the exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and in supersession of the Recruitment Rules, 2002, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, made the Recruitment Rules, 2010. The said Rules, which came into force on 20.12.2010 on its publication in the Gazette of India, regulate the method of 50 OP(CAT)No.108 of 2017 2025:KER:17421 recruitment to Multi-Tasking Staff (erstwhile Group D) in the Department of Posts, with effect from that date. In view of the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench in Roshan Lal Tandon [AIR 1967 SC 1889], which was followed by the Three-Judge Bench in Rajkumar [(2023) 3 SCC 773], the filling up of the vacancies of Multi-Tasking Staff (erstwhile Group D) in the Department of Posts, including the vacancies, if any, occurred prior to 20.12.2010, has to be made as per the existing Rules, i.e., the 'rule in force' as on the date of consideration. Therefore, the applicants in O.A.No.85 of 2014 are not entitled to be considered for promotion under clause (ii) in column (11) of the Schedule to the Recruitment Rules, 2002 against any vacancies of Group D, which existed prior to 20.12.2010, and such vacancies can only be filled up as per the provisions contained in the Recruitment Rules, 2010. The findings to the contra in Ext.P7 order dated 24.06.2016 of the Tribunal cannot be sustained in law.
In the above circumstances, we find no reason to sustain the impugned order dated 24.06.2016 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench in O.A.No.85 of 2015. Accordingly, this original petition is allowed by setting aside the 51 OP(CAT)No.108 of 2017 2025:KER:17421 aforesaid order of the Tribunal. Consequently, O.A.No.85 of 2014 filed by the respondents herein-applicants will stand dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
AV
52
OP(CAT)No.108 of 2017 2025:KER:17421
APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 108/2017
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NO. PT/RECRUITS/98
DATED 31.10.1998 OF THE SUB RECORD OFFICER,
RMS'CT'DIVISION, OTTAPALAM.
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NO. PT/RECTT/SRO OTP
DATED 16.05.2000 SUB RECORD OFFICER, RMS'CT' DIVISION, OTTAPALAM.
ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF POSTS (GROUP D POSTS) RECRUITMENT RULES, 2002 AS PER NOTIFICATION DATED 23.01.2002.
ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. 37-15/2001 SPB-1 DATED 30.01.2002 OF THE ASST. DIRECTOR GENERAL (SPN).
ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. RTI 2005/52/13 DATED 29.10.2013 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF POST MULTI-
TASKING STAFF RECRUITMENT RULES 2010 AS PER GSR NO.984(E) DATED 12.12.2010 ALONG WITH COVERING LETTER NO. 37-33/2009-PB-I DATED 28.01.2011 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.12.2009 IN WPC NO. 28574 OF 2009 AND CONNECTED CASES OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.08.2013 IN OA NO. 536/2012 OF THIS HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL.
ANNEXURE A9 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA LETTER NO. 65-24/88-SPB.I DATED 17.05.1989.
ANNEXURE A10 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.
D4/RTI/SRM DATED 05.11.2014 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONGWITH THE APPLICATION DATED 29.09.2014.
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OA NO.180/00085/2014 DATED
26/1/2014 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS BEFORE
THE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH
53
OP(CAT)No.108 of 2017 2025:KER:17421
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED
12/3/2014, FILED BY THE PETITITIONERS
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER DATED 7/6/2015
FILED BY THE APPLICANT
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT
DATED 3/7/2015 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REJOINDER DATED
26/9/2015 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE SECOND ADDITIONAL REPLY
STATEMENT DATED 30/10/2015 FILED BY THE
PETITIONERS
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OA NO.180/85/2014
DATED 24/6/2016 OF THE CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH