SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- G.B. Pattanaik and B.N. Agrawal, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 644/1994 D/d. 16.1.2001.

Union of India & Anr. - Appellants

Versus

R.L. Sangal & Anr. - Respondents

Constitution of India, 1950, Article 16- Cantonments Act, 1924, Section 280(2)(C) - Military lands and Cantonment Service Rules, 1951 - Promotion- Applicant entered in service in Group B, three and half years prior to appointment of Respondent No. 2 to the said post - Respondent No. 2 promoted to Group-A in 1981 on the ground that he has passed departmental examination- Rules do not makes it obligatory to pass departmental examination as condition precedent for promotion to Group A post- Held non consideration of applicant for promotion was vitiated and violative of Article 16 - Applicant promoted to Group A from date Respondent No. 2 was promoted.

[Para 2]

ORDER

G.B. Pattanaik, J. - This appeal by the Union of India is directed against the impugned order dated 26th April, 1993 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order has directed that Shri R.L. Sangal, who was the applicant before the Tribunal should be promoted to the Group-A from the date his junior in Group-B T.B. Bhowmik was promoted. Shri Sangal is respondent No.1 in the present appeal and Shri Bhowmik is respondent No.2 in the present appeal. Mr. Quadri, the learned counsel appearing for the Union of India vehemently contested the correctness of the impugned direction of the Tribunal, inter alia, on the ground that the respondent No.1 could not have been considered senior to respondent No.2 in Group-B particularly when respondent No.1 passed the departmental examination in the year 1983 and respondent No.2 had passed the departmental examination 1981. The appointment and promotion to the post of Group-A and Group-B are made under a set of Rules called the Military Lands and Cantonment Service Rules, 1951 which has been framed by the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred by Clause C(c) of sub-section (2) of Section 280 of the Cantonments Act, 1924. The aforesaid rule for short the Recruitment Rule is thus has the statutory force. On examining the different provisions of the aforesaid rules, we do not find any provision which makes it obligatory to pass departmental examination as a condition-precedent for considering the case of promotion to Group-A post. That being the position, respondent No.1 having been appointed on 22.9.1972 in Group-B and respondent No.2 having been appointed to the said post in Group-B on 5.4.1976 roughly 3 and half years after, could not have got appointment on substantive post in 1981 merely on the ground that he passed the departmental examination in the year 1981. In this view of the matter in the cadre of Group-B respondent No.1 was righly held to be senior to respondent No.2 and necessarily therefore when respondent No.2 was promoted further to Group-A, non-consideration of the respondent No.1 at that stage was vitiated and violated the provision of Article 16. In the aforesaid premises, we see no infirmity with the impugned direction of the Tribunal so as to be interferred with by this Court.

2. The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.