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,
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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;
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.
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
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
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;
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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),
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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;
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
