WP(C)/4967/2025
2025 Latest Caselaw 8634 Gua

Gauhati High Court

WP(C)/4967/2025 on 18 November, 2025

                                                              Page No.# 1/16

GAHC010185372025




                                                        undefined

                    THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)


                   Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4967/2025


                         Shri Shashi Kant,
                         Son of Late Shri Rameshwar Prasad,
                         Chief General Manager (reverted),
                         BSNL, NE-II Circle, Dimapur
                         Presently working as Principal Chief Engineer
                         (Civil), BSNL Tamil Nadu Civil Zone, Chennai-
                         600006
                                                         ........Petitioner
                              -Versus-
                         1. Union of India, through the Secretary,
                         Department of Telecommunications (DoT),
                         Sanchar Bhawan, Ashoka Road, New Delhi-
                         110001

                            2. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
                         Through its Chairman-cum-Managing
                         Director, Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, Janpath,
                         New Delhi- 110001

                         3. The Deputy General Manager (Personnel -
                         I) BSNL Corporate Office, New Delhi- 110001

                         4. The Deputy General Manager (Personnel -
                         II) BSNL Corporate Office, New Delhi- 110001
                                                     ........Respondents

Page No.# 2/16

-BEFORE-

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

For the petitioner : Mr. Shashi Kant, petitioner-in-person For the Respondent(s) : Mr. K.N. Choudhury, Sr. Advocate, Mr. G. Goswami, Standing Counsel, BSNL

Date on which judgment is reserved : 11.11.2025

Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 18.11.2025

Whether the pronouncement is of the : not applicable operative part of the judgment

Whether the full judgment has been :

pronounced

JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)

(Ashutosh Kumar, C.J.)

We have heard Shri Shashi Kant, petitioner-in-person, and Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. G. Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, BSNL for the respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 30.05.2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Page No.# 3/16

(hereinafter to be referred as "the Tribunal"), Guwahati Bench, in Original Application No.182/2024, whereby the reversion of the petitioner from the post of Chief General Manager, NE-II Circle, Dimapur to the post of Principal Chief Engineer (Civil), Chennai has been refused to be entertained by the Tribunal.

3. The petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant Executive Engineer through Indian Engineering Services Examination, 1991, conducted by the UPSC and was posted in the Department of Telecom (DoT) in the year 1995. By the year 2020, he rose to the rank of Principal Chief Engineer (Civil)/PGM (Civil) and was posted in Tamil Nadu Circle, Chennai in the year 2022. He had been absorbed as Superintending Engineer (Civil) in the BSNL after its formation in the year 2005.

4. "The recruitment Rules of BSNL Management Services-Telecom

Operations Stream (MSRRs-Telecom) 2023" provides that there shall be a common management post of GM Level and above of the BSNL Management Services like HR/Administration/ Marketing/ Sales/EB etc., where technical expertise is not necessitated by virtue of Telecom Operations requirement, which may be manned by Executives at GM Level and above with requisite qualifications from any Stream of Management Services on merit basis. The scope of the common management posts could be expanded as per the business requirement of the Company with the approval of Management Committee of BSNL Board.

The Rules, however, provide in Schedule-I that the post of PGM/CGM (E9) in the pay scale of Rs.62000-80000/- would be filled up by Page No.# 4/16

promotion on selection. The minimum qualifying service for promotion in this grade would be the work experience as executives in Senior General Manager's grade with 3 years of regular service in the grade of GM as on

1st January of the vacancy year. A note appended to this requirement clarifies that selection of officers for the post of CGM shall be made as per separate executive instructions to be issued with the approval of the competent authority.

5. Based on the aforementioned Rules, guidelines for empanelment of officers for holding the post of CGM in BSNL was issued on 20.04.2023.

The guidelines indicated that under the Recruitment Rules of BSNL Management Services (Stream Wise)-2023 under Schedule-I, selection of officers for the post of CGM shall be made as per separate executive instructions to be issued with the approval of the competent authority. Accordingly, the guidelines stated that with the approval of the competent authority, the eligibility criteria for empanelment of the officers for holding the post of CGM in the BSNL would be: (a) all serving absorbed/BSNL recruited PGM grade officers; (b) All serving ITS Grade-A regular HAG and HAG(NFU) level officers posted in BSNL; (c) All serving Senior GM Grade officers of BSNL for empanelment to the post of CGM of small circles (CG, HP, J&K, JHK, NE-I, NE-II, UK) and CN TX-NER & Specialized Telecom Circles (A&N and Sikkim).

6. The selection committee for empanelment of the officers for the post of CGM would comprise CMD, Director (HR) and 2 Directors nominated by CMD. Based on the recommendations of the selection committee, a panel of officers would be drawn for their posting as CGM Page No.# 5/16

in BSNL. The empanelment of officers for the post of CGM in BSNL shall be made for two years.

7. Pursuant to the afore-noted guidelines, the BSNL issued an advertisement on 25.01.2024 inviting willingness for empanelment of executives/officers for holding the post of CGM in BSNL for the second round of CGM Empanelment for the purposes of filling the posts of CGM, which were vacant or likely to become vacant on or before 31.12.2024.

8. Since the petitioner was working as Principal Chief Engineer, he was eligible to apply and he applied for such empanelment. After undergoing rigorous tests, including psychometric test, he was empanelled vide Notification dated 01.06.2024. Be it noted that the selection process included evaluation of APAR of last 5 years, VC of last 10 years, notable contribution and achievements made during last 10 years, technical, managerial, leadership skills and decision-making ability etc.

9. Pursuant to the empanelment of the petitioner, he was posted as CGM, NE-II Circle, Dimapur, Nagaland vide posting order dated 07.06.2024. The petitioner joined on such post on 15.07.2024.

Barely four days later, an order was issued on 19.07.2024 by the BSNL Corporate Office intimating that the Department of Telecom vide ID Note 9-5(4)/2024-Estt, dated 20.06.2024 had instructed that the empanelment process adopted by the BSNL was not in terms of directives that the ITS cadre posts in BSNL should be as per cabinet approval and, therefore, the BSNL was directed to comply with the instructions with immediate effect.

Page No.# 6/16

10. In pursuance to the above, the petitioner and three others, who had joined as CGM on or after 20.06.2024, were relieved from the post of CGM with immediate effect and were directed to join duties in their respective posts from where they had come. The charge of CGM, NE-II, in the meantime, was given to CGM, CNTX-NER, Guwahati in addition to his existing duties, without any remuneration, until further orders.

11. Another communication was issued by the BSNL on 22.07.2024, addressed to all Heads of the Telecom Circles/Administrative Units, intimating them regarding the review of the guidelines for empanelment of officers for holding the post of CGM in BSNL. The said communication indicated that the DoT vide ID Note 9-5(4)/2024-Estt, dated 20.06.2024 had intimated that the empanelment process adopted by the BSNL was not tenable for ITS cadre posts being operated in BSNL as per Union Cabinet Approval. It had also been intimated that the sanctity of the HAG promotion granted to ITS officers, after the DPC conducted by the UPSC and with approval of ACC, is inviolable for cadre posts and, therefore, directed the BSNL to comply with its directions conveyed therein with immediate effect.

12. In view of the aforesaid direction of DoT, the Management Committee of BSNL Board had reviewed the Empanelment Guidelines dated 20.04.2023 and held that the existing guidelines dated 20.04.2023 and 26.05.2023 would stand withdrawn with immediate effect; the existing panel of officers empanelled for holding the post of CGM in BSNL would stand lapsed with immediate effect; and that officers from regular ITS HAG and HAG-NF level ITS officers would be identified and would be Page No.# 7/16

posted as CGM in BSNL strictly as per the directions issued by the DoT vide ID Note 9-5(4)/2024-Estt, dated 20.06.2024

13. For the sake of completeness, we are extracting herein-below the ID note, referred to in the communication dated 22.07.2024:

"Government of India Ministry of Communications Department of Telecommunications

No.9-5(4)/2024-Estt, Dated 20 June, 2024 Subject: Posting of officers against ITS posts being operated in BSNL/MTNL

1. Please refer letters dated 08.05.2023 and 20.09.2023 vide which BSNL has requested DoT to accord in-principle approval for empanelment of HAG/HAG(NFU) level ITS officer working in DoT/MTNL/other organizations to the post of CGM in BSNL by calling options from willing officers through DoT for the year 2024 onwards.

2. ITS officers are being posted in BSNL against the 560 ITS cadre posts under special reserve (HAG-34, SAG-353 and JAG-173) as per Cabinet approval dated 27 July 2022, and are governed by service rules of the ITS cadre as cadre posts.

3. BSNL MSRR-2023 is applicable to BSNL executives only (i.e. BSNL absorbed & BSNL recruited employees). Application of these rules, by way of guidelines issued by BSNL vide its order dated 20.04.2023 making ITS officers posted in BSNL also part of this empanelment on a mandatory basis for CGM, is therefore not tenable. This has also led to legal challenges, where it has been hard to defend the policy.

4. HAG promotion to ITS officers is granted after DPC conducted by UPSC and with the approval of the ACC and the sanctity of this process is inviolable for cadre posts. Hence, posting of the special reserve officers to CGMs empanelled under the MSRR-2023, who are generally junior to these officers, especially Page No.# 8/16

within officers of special reserve pool, is not permissible.

In view of the above, following directions come into immediate effect for compliance by BSNL, with the approval of Hon'ble MOC:

a. The empanelment scheme should not be applicable to cadre posts operated as Special Reserve in BSNL/MTNL, approved by Cabinet and to any ITS officers.

b. Inter-se seniority should be restored and maintained by BSNL while posting ITS officers in current and future postings.

c. ITS Officers after being placed in BSNL under the special reserve in BSNL by DOT, shall be assigned a post for the first time or when transferred subsequently within BSNL, based on recommendations of a placement committee comprising of CMD BSNL, Member (S) and AS(T), and with approval of Secretary (T) Posting orders will then be issued by BSNL, based on approved recommendations."

14. The afore-extracted ID Note 9-5(4)/2024-Estt, dated 20.06.2024 actually clarifies that the BSNL MSRR-2023 is applicable to BSNL executives only (BSNL absorbed and BSNL recruited employees) and not for ITS officers.

ITS officers posted in BSNL against 560 ITS cadre posts under special reserve as per the cabinet approval dated 27.07.2022, are governed by the service rules of the ITS cadre as cadre posts. HAG promotion to ITS officers is granted after DPC conducted by the UPSC and with the approval of the ACC. Hence, posting of the special reserve officers, empanelled under the MSRR-2023, who are generally junior to the ITS officers, especially within the officers of special reserve pool, on the posts of CGM was not permissible.

15. In view of this reasoning, a direction was issued that the Page No.# 9/16

empanelment scheme should not be made applicable to the cadre posts operated as Special Reserve in BSNL/MTNL and that inter se seniority should be restored and maintained by the BSNL while posting ITS officers in current and future postings.

16. As noted above, on the basis of the afore-extracted ID Note 9- 5(4)/2024-Estt, dated 20.06.2024, the guidelines for empanelment dated 20.04.2023 was reviewed. Thereafter, the BSNL, vide an order dated 19.07.2024, relieved the petitioner from the charge of CGM, NE-II and reverted him to his original post of Principal Chief Engineer (Civil), Tamil Nadu Circle, Chennai.

17. Pursuant to this communication, the petitioner relinquished his charge as CGM, NE-II Circle, Dimapur, Nagaland in the afternoon of 20.07.2024.

18. Aggrieved by such reversion, the petitioner had approached the Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, by filing Original Application No. 182/2024. The Tribunal, vide order dated 30.07.2024, as an interim measure, stayed the operation of the reversion order dated 19.07.2024 with the direction to allow the petitioner to continue at the post of CGM, NE-II Circle, Dimapur, Nagaland, till the next date.

19. Based on this interim direction of the Tribunal dated 30.07.2024, he assumed the charge of the post of CGM, NE-II Circle, BSNL, Dimapur in the forenoon of 02.08.2024 and represented to the CMD, BSNL, to allow him to discharge the duties of CGM, NE-II Circle and also for mapping the ERP, SAP, E-Office and Attendance Portal in his name as CGM, BSNL, NE-II Circle.

Page No.# 10/16

20. The Managing Director, BSNL, challenged such interim stay order before the Gauhati High Court vide WP(C) No. 4531/2024.

The High Court, vide order dated 12.11.2024, set aside the interim order of the Tribunal.

21. Against the afore-noted judgment of the High Court in WP(C) No. 4531/2024, referred to above, the petitioner preferred a Special Leave Petition (SLP No. 29162/2024) before the Supreme Court, which was not entertained; rather, vide order dated 13.12.2024, the Supreme Court passed an order directing the Tribunal to decide the Original Application pending before it on its own merits, without being influenced by any of the observations made by the High Court in WP(C) No. 4531/2024.

22. The Tribunal, vide order dated 30.05.2025 dismissed the Original Application of the petitioner on the ground that the guidelines/executive instructions dated 20.04.2023, which was the basis for the advertisement and empanelment of the petitioner and others, was in contravention of the recruitment Rules, i.e. MSRRs-Telecom-Rules, 2023 and, therefore, the guidelines had been withdrawn by the BSNL and, accordingly, the panel dated 01.06.2024, which had been prepared on the basis of such guidelines, was also made to lapse.

23. The Tribunal therefore did not find any infirmity in the order passed by the respondent/BSNL relieving the petitioner from his responsibility of CGM, NE-II Circle, Dimapur and reverting him to his substantive position of Principal Chief Engineer (Civil)/ PGM (Civil), Tamil Nadu Circle, Chennai.

24. The stand of the respondents before the Tribunal was that the petitioner had himself relinquished the charge and had then Page No.# 11/16

approached the Tribunal and, on the strength of an interim order, attempted to assume the charge of CGM (Civil), NE-II Circle on his own initiative, without there being any formal administrative order.

25. The Tribunal took note of the fact that after the implementation of Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS), 2019 in BSNL with effect from 31.01.2021, the BSNL was facing acute shortage of officers, especially in Telecom stream. To mitigate this problem, the then CMD, BSNL, had requested the Department of Telecommunications (DOT) to devise a plan with the approval of the Union Cabinet for deployment of the ITS officers in BSNL. Accordingly, the DoT, vide Office Memorandum dated 03.08.2022, conveyed to the BSNL the approval of the Union Cabinet for creating a Special Diminishing Reserve of 560 posts of ITS officers for posting in BSNL/MTNL (The special reserve was to be non-diminishing for five years from January, 2022 to December, 2026 and was to be diminished in a phased manner thereafter). Out of these 560 ITS posts, about 32 ITS posts were to be operated in MTNL at different Telecom Sectors.

26. Since January 2025, the Tribunal noted, telecom operations of MTNL in Mumbai and Delhi were also being managed exclusively by BSNL. It was reiterated by the Tribunal that the "Recruitment Rules of BSNL Management-Services-Telecom Operations Stream" (MSRRs-Telecom)- 2023 dated 31.12.2023 expressly provided that the CGM/PGM level posts should be filled up from regular ITS HAG and HAG NF level ITS officers. This clearly put an interdict on the CGM/PGM posts being filled by any officers from outside the ITS cadre.

Page No.# 12/16

27. Holding the post of CGM (Telecom) to be a highly technical position that mandates requirement of in-depth expertise in areas such as Mobile, optical fiber, IMMPLS and other advanced telecommunications technologies, the Tribunal concluded that the CGM posts in telecom stream should be reserved for officers belonging to telecom stream alone. The Tribunal observed that the petitioner belongs to civil stream and he is to be governed by MSRR (Civil) 2023 and not by the MSRR (Telecom) 2023. It was also observed by the Tribunal that as per the MSRR (Civil) 2023, the highest position in that stream is CGM/PGM, which position the petitioner had already reached. Thus, for all practical purposes, his being posted from the position of PGM to CGM, or his reversion to the position of PGM ought to be taken as merely a transfer and posting and not as promotion.

Thus, when the empanelment was itself flawed, the petitioner would have no right to remain on the same post.

28. The primary contention of the petitioner, while assailing the order of the Tribunal, is that the Rules of 2023 provided for creation of a common management pool. The exclusivity given to ITS officers, therefore, is unjustified.

29. The other grounds of challenge are that the post of CGM is a business leadership post and not a technical specialization post. All vertical heads in the BSNL, be it Finance, Civil, Electrical, Architecture, Sales & Marketing, Enterprise Business, or Telecom operations, report to the CGM. Therefore, the post of CGM is only a post of a managerial head and ought not to be in the exclusive domain of telecom operations Page No.# 13/16

experts; the empanelment guidelines had been issued with the approval of the Management Committee of the BSNL Board, which ought not to have been upturned lightly and; that in any selection, primacy ought to be given to merit, performance and suitability and not merely to seniority.

30. Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned senior Advocate for the respondents expostulated that officers in Telecom stream consist of ITS officers posted on "deemed ITS cadre posts", absorbed ITS officers and directly recruited officers. Since the CGM (Telecom) is a highly technical post and the Rules specify that only ITS cadre people should be made CGM, any wrong interpretation of the Rules leading to issuance of a faulty guideline by the BSNL cannot be allowed to be perpetuated. He categorically asserts that the Empanelment Guidelines dated 20.04.2023 were contrary to the express provisions of the MSRR-2023 impinging upon the statutory status of the ITS officers and in teeth of the Union Cabinet decision.

31. Mr. Choudhury has also questioned the petitioner's eligibility to hold the post of CGM (Telecom) as he belongs to the civil stream and is governed by the MSRR (Civil) 2023 and not by MSRR (Telecom) 2023. No right can be said to have accrued in favour of the petitioner by virtue of his empanelment when the very guidelines, on the basis of which the petitioner had been empanelled, was found to be erroneous. He argues that any mistake committed by an authority can always be rectified. True it is, that there was a mistake on the part of the department, but it cannot be countenanced that the mistake cannot be corrected.

32. In Indian Council of Agricultural Research and Anr. Vs. T.K. Suryanarayan, (1997) 6 SCC 766, it was held that if promotion is given erroneously by Page No.# 14/16

wrongly interpreting the Rules, the employer cannot be prevented from applying the Rules correctly and correcting the mistake. Even though such correction of mistake may cause hardship to the employees, but the Court of law cannot ignore the statutory Rules.

33. After hearing the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, we find that though the petitioner was empanelled and posted as CGM, NE- II Circle, but the very basis for the empanelment, namely, the Guidelines dated 20.04.2023, on the basis of which the petitioner was empanelled, was subsequently found to be faulty wherein equal weightage was given to ITS officers and non-ITS officers. This was in clear breach of the Recruitment Rules of 2023.

34. We have also not found any mala fide intent on the part of the respondents in reverting the petitioner to his original post of PGM. Only four officers, including the petitioner, were reverted to their original positions. However, none of them except the petitioner has challenged such reversion. In fact, it is not reversion at all, as the petitioner has already achieved the highest position in his stream (Civil).

35. A mistake is a mistake, which can always be corrected, but of course after following the procedure established under the law. Such an exercise undertaken by the respondents to correct the error cannot be likened to a review jurisdiction. The general principle is that the power to review must be conferred by a statute, either specifically or by necessary implication. This principle is applicable only where the government exercises quasi-judicial power vested in it by a statute, and not to a Page No.# 15/16

purely administrative decision.

36. In R.R. Verma and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., (1980) 3 SCC 402 , it has been held by the Supreme Court that a government or its agencies or its instrumentalities must be free to alter its policy or its decision in administrative matters and cannot remain hide-bound by the rules and restrictions of judicial procedure though, of course, they are bound to obey all statutory requirements and also to observe the principles of natural justice where rights of the parties may be affected.

37. Situated thus, we do not find that the Tribunal was off-the-line while rejecting the contentions of the petitioner.

38. We have also taken note of the fact that the petitioner had filed another Misc. Application before the Tribunal in the same Original Application, seeking a direction that since he had undertaken a journey on his transfer from Chennai to Dimapur and again, on his reversion, from Dimapur to Chennai, pursuant to official orders, he be paid his transfer allowances and grants, which are admissible to him and are permissible.

39. The Tribunal, on such prayer of the petitioner, directed the BSNL to pay to the petitioner his salary from July, 2024 to 12.11.2024 forthwith. The Tribunal also directed that since the petitioner had undertaken journey from Chennai to Dimapur and back to Chennai again, his claims relating to travelling allowances and grants also be settled as per the admissible rules.

40. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite such directions, the Page No.# 16/16

same has not been paid to him.

41. Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents submits that this aspect shall be looked into and the respondents would have no objection to pay to the petitioner the salary, travelling allowances and grants, as admissible and permissible as per rules.

42. We therefore, while concluding, direct that all such directions issued by the Tribunal with respect to the salary and transfer allowances and grants, as admissible to the petitioner, be paid to him forthwith, preferably within a period of three weeks from today.

43. The writ petition is but dismissed making it cost easy.

                               JUDGE                    CHIEF JUSTICE




 Gunajit Digitally
         by Gunajit
                   signed

 Bhagawa Bhagawati
         Date: 2025.11.18
 ti      14:32:51 +05'30'



Comparing Assistant