- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Comptroller And Auditor General Of India And Another v. K.S Jagannathan .
Factual and Procedural Background
The respondent, a member of the Scheduled Caste community, appeared in December 1980 for Part II of the Subordinate Accounts Service (SAS) departmental examination, a qualifying test for promotion. Having failed to secure the required marks, he sought relaxation of marks. The matter ultimately reached the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2952 of 1984, which—relying on its judgment in Comptroller and Auditor General of India v. K.S. Jagannathan—granted a relaxation of 25 marks and declared the respondent to have passed the examination, but expressly directed that he be placed in seniority below all those who had already passed and been promoted.
Following this decision, an order dated 12 June 1986 accorded the respondent deemed promotion as Section Officer with effect from 12 June 1981, positioning him below earlier successful candidates. Dissatisfied, he sought clarification through CMP No. 29943 of 1986, but the Supreme Court reaffirmed the earlier seniority placement and stated that paragraph 184 of the Standing Orders stood modified accordingly.
Undeterred, the respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in Application No. 489 of 1987, seeking promotion as Assistant Audit Officer from 1984 and as Audit Officer from 1986 against reserved vacancies. The CAT allowed the claim, directing preparation of select lists for 1984 onwards, application of the 40-point roster, and grant of consequential benefits. The present appeal challenges that CAT order.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal’s grant of promotional benefits to the respondent is compatible with, or contrary to, the binding directions issued by the Supreme Court in Comptroller and Auditor General of India v. K.S. Jagannathan and the subsequent clarification in CMP No. 29943 of 1986.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Comptroller and Auditor General of India v. K.S. Jagannathan, (1986) 2 SCC 679 | Allowed a relaxation of 25 marks for SC/ST candidates in the SAS Part II examination while stipulating that such candidates would rank below those already qualified; modified seniority rule in para 184 of Standing Orders. | The Court held that the CAT’s order conflicted with these binding directions, emphasizing that the respondent must remain below previously promoted officers and could not claim additional promotions based on carry-forward vacancies. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court observed that:
- The CAT premised its decision on a perceived entitlement of the respondent to “carry-forward” reserved vacancies from 1984 onward and to receive consequential promotions.
- Such reasoning is “incompatible” with the explicit directions of the Supreme Court, which had already fixed the respondent’s seniority position and limited his entitlement to a deemed promotion as Section Officer below all earlier qualified officers.
- The clarification order in CMP No. 29943 of 1986 expressly denied the very relief later granted by the CAT; therefore, the CAT lacked authority to revisit or override the Supreme Court’s mandate.
- By disregarding these directions, the CAT “behaved very badly,” warranting appellate intervention.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL ALLOWED; CAT ORDER SET ASIDE.
Immediate Effect: The respondent is not entitled to further promotions or monetary benefits beyond those already conferred pursuant to the Supreme Court’s original judgment and clarification. Costs were not awarded.
Broader Implications: The decision reinforces the binding nature of Supreme Court directions on subordinate tribunals and clarifies that tribunals cannot grant relief expressly denied by the apex court; however, no new legal doctrine was created.
Order
1. The only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the relief granted by the Central Administrative Tribunal in favour of the respondent is in accordance with the judgment of this Court in Comptroller and Auditor General of India v. K.S Jagannathan (1986) 2 SCC 679 at 705-06, (1986) 1 ATC 1, (1986) 2 SCR 17. The relevant portion of the judgment reads:
“For Part II examination of the Subordinate Accounts Service Examination (Ordinary) and all subsequent Part II examinations of the Subordinate Accounts Service Examination (Ordinary) held hereafter until today there will be a relaxation of 25 marks in all for candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, that is, this relaxation will cover not only the pass marks to be given in the aggregate but will be inclusive of the pass marks to be given in each individual paper so that the total number of marks covered by such relaxation will not exceed 25. The respondents and all other candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes who will pass the said examinations as a result of the above relaxation are declared to have passed such examinations and to have been promoted to the Subordinate Accounts Service in the vacancies reserved for the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes with effect from the date when the final declaration of the results of each such examination was made and will be paid such salary and shall be entitled to all other benefits on the basis of such promotion with effect from the said date. So far as seniority is concerned, however, they will not rank above those who have already passed and have been promoted but will be placed in the seniority list after all those who have passed in Part II of the Subordinate Accounts Service Examination (Ordinary) held so far, ranking inter se according to the rules relating to seniority set out in paragraph 184 of volume I of the Comptroller and Auditor General's Manual of Standing Orders (Administrative).”
2. The facts leading to the above case are these. In December 1980, the respondent appeared for Part II examination of the Subordinate Accounts Service Examination which is a prescribed departmental examination for promotion. He was not declared successful. He claimed relaxation in awarding certain marks. That claim was not acceded to. Finally, he approached this Court in C.A No. 2952 of 1984 in which he was given the relief as stated above. He was declared to have passed the Part II examination of the SAS examination, but a specific direction was issued that he should be ranked below all those who have already passed such examination and since been promoted. To be more specific, it was directed that he should be placed in the seniority list after all those who have passed Part II of the SAS examination held so far ranking inter se according to the rules relating to seniority set out in para 184 of volume I of the Comptroller and Auditor General's Manual of Standing Orders (Administrative).
3. In obedience to the direction of this Court an order dated June 12, 1986 was made giving deemed promotion to the respondent as Section Officer w.e.f June 12, 1981 and he was ranked below all the persons who have passed the SAS examination earlier. Consequently, he was also given further promotion. The respondent was not satisfied with the benefits given to him. He approached this Court seeking clarification of the direction issued in his earlier case. He filed CMP No. 29943 of 1986 which was disposed of in the following terms:
“In view of the said direction, C and AG of India has rightly placed the respondents below to all those who had passed the examination held from 1980 onwards in the seniority list. The contention that this would violate the rule of seniority as embodied in para 184 of the Standing Orders cannot prevail. The rule as to inter se seniority set out in para 184 stands modified accordingly.”
4. It will be seen from the above clarification that the seniority fixed and the promotion given to the respondent was upheld. Nonetheless, the respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing an Application No. 489 of 1987. Therein he sought a direction to the Comptroller and Auditor General to promote him from the post of Section Officer to that of Assistant Audit Officer w.e.f 1984 and also to promote him as Audit Officer w.e.f 1986 against the reserved vacancy.
5. The Tribunal has allowed that claim with the following directions:
“To prepare for the year 1984 and thereafter for each recruitment year select list for the posts of Assistant Audit Officer with reference to rule of reservation based on the 40 point poster. For the recruitment year 1986 against the carry forward vacancies of 1985 if the applicant fulfils the conditions laid down in the rules then in force, he should be promoted with all consequential monetary benefits. Similarly, for the post of Audit Officer if he fulfils the conditions, the applicant may be considered against the reserve vacancies for the subsequent recruitment years with all consequential monetary benefits.”
6. The Tribunal seems to have proceeded on the ground that the respondent is entitled to carry forward vacancies from the year 1984 and he is entitled to be promoted against the carry forward vacancy from the recruitment year 1986 as Assistant Audit Officer and again thereafter for the post of Audit Officer following the same principle. The Tribunal has also observed that the judgment of this Court cannot deny him these promotional benefits from 1981. But the result of this reasoning is incompatible with the decision of this Court. But it is important to point out that relief could not have been allowed by the Tribunal since it was specifically directed by this Court that he should be ranked below all those persons who had passed till then the SAS examination and promoted. The Tribunal also ought to have known that the relief which the respondent sought before the Tribunal was denied to him by this Court in the clarification order made in CMP No. 29943 of 1986. It is unfortunate that in spite of the clear direction of this Court and the clarification subsequently made denying that relief, the Tribunal thought fit to grant the same to the respondent. To say the least, the Tribunal has behaved very badly.
7. In the result we allow the appeal, set aside the order of the Tribunal. However, in the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.
Alert