Union of India vs K. Rajasekharan Nair

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.—These original petitions are filed by the Union of India. The matter comes from Postal Department. The respondent in OP (CAT).1442/11, K.Rajasekharan Nair and the respondent in OP (CAT). 1736/11, K.R.Sreedevi were the applicants before the Tribunal. They had obtained orders under which they appeared for departmental examinations for promotion to the post of Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant.

The fundamental issue in dispute between the parties is as to whether the employees concerned were entitled to repeatedly sit for such examination without any pegging on the total number of examinations which they could take. The Tribunal, quoting its own earlier orders as affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in exercise of authority under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, held that the applicants cannot be tied down to any particular number of chances on the basis of subsequent clarificatory directions or circulars issued by the establishment. We may note that the Tribunal specifically noticed that its decision in this regard in O.A.975/97 stood upheld by this Court in O.P.26159/99 and the common judgment in O.A.Nos. 1000/01, 1006/01 and 354/03 was rendered following the aforesaid decision. That common judgment was affirmed by this Court in W.P (C). 674/06 and O.P.36259/99. However, it happened that O.A.274/04 was decided by the Tribunal holding that the amended Recruitment Rules contain the specific provision that the recruitment shall be governed by the administrative instructions and therefore, the principles contained in the aforesaid decisions may not thereafter apply. That view was upturned by this Court in W.P (C). 10600/06 by judgment dated 5.3.2009. Thereafter, the Tribunal allowed O.A.259/07 filed by K.Kunjumol. This Court had affirmed that decision of the Tribunal by judgment dated 11.1.2010 in W.P (C). 739/10.

The fact of the matter remains that from W.P (C). 739/10, the establishment carried a SLP to the Apex Court and pending that, the establishment brought to the notice of the Apex Court that they had, thereafter, come out with a circular which provides enhancement from the total number of chances for the examination from 6 to 8. Noticing that Kunjumol appears to have submitted before the Apex court that she would be satisfied without getting the benefit of that circular, the establishment got their SLP dismissed as not pressed.

Hence, notwithstanding the effect of Kunjumol''s case, the earlier precedents laid down by this Court confirming the views of the Tribunal continue to govern the case of Rajasekharan Nair and Sreedevi, which are the matters now before us.

The establishment may be justified in saying that the benefit of the interpretation given in these cases may have to stand confined to the cases in hand and may not be considered as a precedent. We are clear in our mind that it may not be within our province to make any declaration as to the precedential value of an order of a tribunal or judgment of this Court, unless of course, that issue becomes relevant for decision in a subsequent case where the previous decision is sought to be relied on as a precedent.

Be that as it may, following the judgments which were rendered by the Tribunal and affirmed by this Court, we find no legal infirmity or error of jurisdiction in the orders issued in Rajasekharan Nair''s case and Sreedevi''s case which are impugned in these original petitions. We see from the papers that the result of the examination which Rajasekharan Nair took had already been declared and the Tribunal had directed to declare the result in Sreedevi''s case.

Having found no infirmity in the impugned orders, these original petitions fail. In the result, they are dismissed.

Learned counsel for the employees made a very persuasive request for imposition of very heavy costs. In fact, we are also of the opinion that the employees have unnecessarily dragged from authority to authority, including this Court, for redressel of their grievances. But, having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances and the sequence of events noted above, including the manner in which the SLP in Kunjumol''s case ended in the Apex Court, we desist from imposing an order of costs in favour of the employees involved in these litigations.