IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2014

IN

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2383 of 2008

(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 16840 of 2002

IN THE MATTER OF

Rajesh Kumar-I …..Petitioner

Versus

Union of India & Ors … Respondents

OFFICE REPORT ON LIMITATION

1. The Petition is/are within time.

2. The Petition is barred by time and there is delay of

_________ days in filing the same against order dated

__________and petition for Condonation of

___________ days delay has been filed.

3. There is delay of ___________ days in re-filing the

petition and petition for Condonation of _________

days delay in re-filing has been filed.

BRANCH OFFICER

New Delhi
Dated :
 SYNOPSIS

The petitioner is praying for due indulgence of this Hon’ble

Court to review the judgment and final order dated

01.04.2008 passed by this Hon’ble Court in Civil Appeal

No. 2383 of 2008 in the light of Constitution bench

judgment and order dated 15.07.2014 passed by this

Hon’ble Court in “Civil Appeal No. 6046-6047 of 2004

Rohtas Bhankhar & Ors. Vs Union of India & Anr.”

whereby this Hon’ble Court has set aside the O.M. No.

36012/23/96-Estt. (Res) dated 22.07.1997. It is pertinent

to mention here that the abovementioned civil appeal of

the petitioner herein was dismissed only due to the said

O.M. dated 22.07.1997 which remained technically

operative from 22.07.1997 to 03.10.2000.

In the instant case, all the matters, which were filed on

the similar grounds challenging OM dated 22.07.1997,

were referred to constitutional bench but some of the

matters were decided by this Hon’ble Court without

referring the said matters to the constitution bench.

Similarly the civil appeal no. 2383 of 2008 was also

decided against the petitioner herein after upholding the

OM dated 22.07.1997, consequently, the petitioner was

reverted back from the post of Account Officer to the

earlier post.
It is submitted that vide O.M. letter dated 23.12.1970,

04.05.1981 & 31.01.1995, Govt. of India, Department of

Personal and Training issued instructions for relaxing the

parameter for qualifying the candidates belongs to SC/ST

by reducing the qualifying marks from 40% to 35% while

considering them for promotion. The validity of the

aforesaid government instructions were challenged before

this Hon’ble Court. In the case of S. Vinod Kumar Vs

Union of India (JT 1996 (6) SC 643), this Hon’ble Court

held that the provision of lowering qualifying works in the

matter of promotion for candidates belong to SC/ST is not

permissible U/Article 16(4) and in view of command

contend in Article 335 of constitution of India.

Consequently, Government of India decided to withdraw

the said instructions issued on earlier for relaxing the

standard of selection for promotion vide OM dated

22.07.1997.

Meanwhile, the constitution 82nd Amendment Act 2000

was passed & published in the gazette of the India

8.9.2000 which amended the Article-335 of Constitution

of India and permits the state to allow policy of the

relaxing in qualifying marks in the concerned examination

held for promoting the employees those who are belongs to

SC/ST, accordingly, in pursuance to amendment of

Article-335 of Constitution of India Department Of

Personal and Training Govt. of India issued instructions

dated 03.10.2000 to restore the concession given in the

matter of promotion for the candidates belongs to SC/ST

by way of lowering qualifying marks of evaluation.

That without prejudice do the submission herein and

above mentioned, it is submitted that the petitioner herein

was also appeared in the J.A.O. Part-I examination held in

1999 and the that result of the said J.A.O. Exam 1999

was declared on 29.01.2002 much after the 82 nd

Constitutional Amendment Act and consequent Govt.

instruction dated 3.10.2000 but erroneously the

competent authority/ respondents had not applied the

relaxed standard as prescribed for SC/ST candidates. It is

submitted that this case is a unique example in regard to

non-compliance of the Govt. instruction and defected the

aims and objective of the said Amendment. It will not out

of place to mention here that the Govt. instruction dt.

3.10.2000 had/has only labor the relaxations and

promotions which were already settled on the day of

notification. It is crystal clear that the final result of JAO

Exam. 1999 was declared much after the date of issuance

of notification for relaxed the standard since 40% to 33%

and the same is squarely concerned by said notification.

The petitioner herein craves the leave of this Hon’ble Court

to reproduce the relevant provisions:

Article-335 of Constitution of India.

The claims of the members of the Scheduled Castes and

the Scheduled Tribes shall be taken into consideration,

consistently with the maintenance of efficiency of

administration, in the making of appointments to services

and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of

a State:

[Provided that nothing in this article shall prevent in

making of any provision in favour of the members of the

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes for relaxation

in qualifying marks in any examination or lowering the

standards of evaluation, for reservation in matters of

promotion to any class or classes of services or posts in

connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State.]

Article 16 of Constitution of India.

16 (1) There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens

in matters relating to employment or appointment to any

office under the State.

(2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race,

caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of

them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect

of, any employment or office under the State.

(3) Nothing in this article shall prevent Parliament from

making any law prescribing, in regard to a class or classes

of employment or appointment to an office [under the

Government of, or any local or other authority within, a

State or Union territory, any requirement as to residence

within that State or Union territory] prior to such

employment or appointment.

(4) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from

making any provision for the reservation of appointments

or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which,

in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented

in the services under the State.

[(4A) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from

making any provision for reservation [in matters of

promotion, with consequential seniority, to any class] or

classes of posts in the services under the State in favour

of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes which,

in the opinion of the State, are not adequately represented

in the services under the State.]

[(4B) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from

considering any unfilled vacancies of a year which are

reserved for being filled up in that year in accordance with

any provision for reservation made under clause (4) or

clause (4A) as a separate class of vacancies to be filled up

in any succeeding year or years and such class of

vacancies shall not be considered together with the

vacancies of the year in which they are being filled up for

determining the ceiling of fifty per cent. reservation on

total number of vacancies of that year.

It is submitted that it had not been brought to the notice

of the Hon’ble Supreme Court at the time of hearing of the

appeal that through the constitutional amendment

enacted vide 82nd Amendment Act, 2000, proviso to Article

335 of the Constitution of India had been added enabling

the government to provide for lower qualifying

marks/lesser standards of evaluation in the case of

candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes/Tribes

category. Pursuant to the constitutional amendment, the

DOP&T had issued O.M. dated 03.10.2000 explicitly

stating that the effect of these instructions would be that

the DOP&T O.M. No. 36012/23/96-Estt. (Res) dated

22.07.1997 become inoperative from the date of issue of

the O.M. i.e. w.e.f. 03.10.2000.

The applicant had been promoted as JAO on

02.07.2004 and had been further promoted as Accounts

Officer on regular basis on 15.10.2008. In the given facts

and circumstances, the order dated 01.04.2008 passed by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowing the Civil Appeal filed

by the respondents should have been related as

inconsequential. It is once again very pertinent to mention

here that it had also not been brought to the notice of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court that the O.M. dated 22.07.1997

had been rendered inoperative by O.M. dated 03.10.2000

w.e.f. the same date.

 That, it is submitted that the petitioner herein was

initially selected and appointed as Time scale telephone

operator on 01.02.1980 in department of Telecom Govt. of

India. That, after rendering five years service in the

department, the petitioner herein became eligible for

appearing in the qualifying examination for the post

Junior Account Officer. It is submitted that the procedure

of promotion to the post of JAO is followed by JAO (Part-I)

& JAO (Part-II) examination. As per the eligibility criteria

the petitioner herein has become eligible in the year 1985.

It is most respectfully submitted, finally, the JAO

Part-I examination was held from 13 to 15 September

1997 and the petitioner participated in the aforesaid

examination. The result of said JAO part I examination

was declared on 01.08.1998 wherein the petitioner

declared failed even he secured more than 33% marks in

each paper which is sufficient to get qualify as per relaxed

parameter.

The petitioner made representation before the

concerned authority to declare him qualified in JAO Part I

examination. It is submitted that the Hon’ble CAT

Chandigarh vide Judgment dated 06.10.2000 allowed O.A.

No. 513/PB/99 in the case of Manjeet Kaur, whereby

directing the competent authority declare the result of

Manjeet Kaur belonging to Schedule Caste community.

Consequently, the Petitioner also approached CAT

Chandigarh by filing O.A 165/PB/2001 with the prayer,

“That directions to respondents be issued to review

the case of the applicant being a SC candidate an

further direct to declare the result of the applicant of

JAO Part-I Examination. The case of the applicant be

disposed of in the same terms as per judgment in

O.A. 513/PB/99titled Manjit Kaur-II and to further

direct the respondents to declare her result as

qualified after reviewing her result as per relaxed

parameters with all consequential benefits”.

That the Ld. CAT Chandigarh allowed aforesaid O.A. filed

by Petitioner in terms of the case Manjeet Kaur Vs UOI in

O.A 513/PB/1999 decided 06.10.2000 decided by CAT

Chandigarh directing the concerned authority to declare

the result of the Petitioner according to the relaxed

parameter.

In pursuance to the order passed by Ld. Hon’ble

CAT, Chandigarh, the petitioner herein was declared

qualified in the JAO Part-I examination on 01.04.2002

after applying the relaxed parameter as applicable for

SC/ST which has been already restored in year 2000.

After qualifying the JAO Part-I examination the petitioner

herein appeared in JAO Part-II examination held from 17

to 19 September 2003. The petitioner herein was declared

successful JAO Part-II examination on 18.05.2004 and

consequently, he was promoted on the post of JAO (Junior

Account Officer) and posted at Amritsar in Punjab circle

on probation. In the meanwhile the respondent herein

challenged the order passed by Hon’ble CAT before in

favour of petitioner herein before Hon’ble High Court at

Chandigarh. But Hon’ble High Court dismissed the

aforesaid writ petition.

The respondent herein filed SLP Civil No 16840 of

2002 before this Hon’ble Court vide order dated

01.04.2008, this Hon’ble Court was pleased to allow the

Civil Appeal and set aside the order passed by the Ld. CAT

Chandigarh and affirmed by the Hon’ble High Court which

is bye-passing the constitutional amendment. It is

submitted that on the strength of the Ld. CAT order the

petitioner herein was allowed to appear in Part II

examination where he was declared qualified and

consequently promoted.

That in consequence to the order passed by this

Hon’ble Court dated 01.04.2008, the concerned authority

passed order dated 10.12.2010 reverting back the

petitioner herein to the lower post is not sustainable and

being absolutely illegal and without any basis. In the light

of these facts, the order dated 10.12.2010 reverting the

applicant to the non-executive post had proceeded on the

basis of incorrect and misconceived premises i.e. para 4 of

the O.M. dated 03.10.2000 clearly establishes that, ‘All

selections finalized earlier shall not be disturbed.’

As the promotions granted to the petitioner are

subsequent to the issuance of O.M. dated 03.10.2000, the

promotion as JAO and Accounts Officer cannot be

cancelled as the order dated 10.12.2010 cannot stand

with legal sanctity since the position prevailing prior to the

amendment of Article 335 by adding a proviso has been

restored with effect from 03.10.2000 and the O.M. dated

22.07.1997 had been rendered inoperative.

Vide representation dated 10.05.2012 submitted to

the Director Finance in the office of respondent No. 2, the

petitioner had brought to his notice that the relaxation in

promotion in the same examination given to three

Scheduled Castes candidates of Haryana Circle namely

Sh. Dharambir, Sh. Meena and Sh. Balbir Singh

Bhumbak has neither been challenged in the higher

courts nor they have been reverted by the respondent

authorities.

The above mentioned persons have been allowed to

work as Accounts Officer/Junior Accounts Officer ever

since from the date of promotions to these posts from the

post of Senior TOAs. Consequently, the petitioner herein

approached by filing O.A. No. 1197 of 2013 before Ld.

CAT Chandigarh against the reversion order from the post

of Account Officer to Telephone Operator but the same

was dismissed due to the dismissal of abovementioned

Civil Appeal filed by respondents against the petitioner.

From the above sequence of events, it is clearly

established that the applicant has been discriminated

against in many ways and on many occasions due to

which the applicant has been constrained to approach

this Hon’ble Court by way of filing the review application

and praying for justice in his case by reviewing the earlier

order and restoring the petitioner to the post of Accounts

Officer on which the petitioner had been working at the

time of his illegal reversion to the non-executive post. It is

further submitted that after passing the constitution

bench judgment dated 15.07.2014, there is nothing left for

the respondents not to restore the position of the

petitioner as it was on before reverting back.

……….
 LIST OF DATES

01.02.1980 Petitioner was appointed as Time Scale

Telephone Operator on 01.02.1980 and was

posted at Amritsar, Punjab. He belongs to SC

community.

08.12.1985 That the Petitioner, after rendering 5 years of

service in the department, became eligible for

appearing in the examination for the post of

Junior Accounts Officer (JAO). The JAO

Examination is conducted in two parts as JAO

(Part-1) and JAO (Part-2). As per the

Recruitment Rules of 1985, a candidate has to

qualify the JAO (Both the Parts) Examination to

get promoted to the post of JAO.

26.06.1996 Examination (Part-1) for the post of Junior

Accounts Officer in DoT (now BSNL) was

scheduled on 26.06.1996. The relaxation by

way of lower qualifying marks/ lesser standards

of evaluation for SC/ST were applicable. Due to

some departmental reasons/issues, the

examination was postponed 5 times.

01.10.1996 The Government of India/ DoP&T/ DG P&T/

DoT, New Delhi had issued certain instructions

for relaxation /concession in the matter of

qualifying marks/ standards of evaluation of

performance in favour of the candidates

belonging to SC/ST community while

considering them for promotion. The validity of

such lower qualifying marks for evaluation was

called in question in Courts in context of the

judgment of this Hon’ble Court in Indira

Sawhney vs. U.O.I.

27.05.1997 The qualifying standards for the aforesaid

examination as mentioned in the DoT Letter No.

9-9/96 DE dated 27.05.1997 were as under:

Total Marks: 750

Category of the General SC/ST

candidate

Minimum qualifying 40% 33%

marks in each subject

Minimum qualifying 45% 38%

marks in aggregate (338/750) (285/750)

22.07.1997 Government of India, Ministry of Personnel,

Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of

Personnel and Training withdrew the relaxation

by way of lower qualifying marks for SC/ ST

 vide OM No. 36012/23/96- Estt. (Res.) dated

22.07.1997 stating that there shall be no

separate standards for evaluation for SC/ST

candidates for this purpose. There shall be

uniform standards for all. Any other

instructions of Government which provide for

lower qualifying marks of evaluation in the

matter of promotion for candidates belonging to

SC/ST may also be treated as modified to this

extent.

Sept. 1997 Part-1 of aforesaid examination was held on

13.09.1997 and 15.09.1997. Petitioner

appeared in the examination under Roll No.

PBT/1/96/131.

31.07.1998 A letter dated 31.07.1998 was issued by the

DoT to contend that OM No. 36012/23/96-

Estt. (Res.) dated 22.07.1997 is applicable from

22.07.1997 and there shall be no separate

standards for evaluation for candidates of

SC/ST communities, so, the SC/ST candidates

were denied the benefit with a retrospective

effect.
22.08.1998 The result of the aforesaid examination (Part-1)

was declared on 22.08.1998 with a uniform

standard for General as well as SC/ST category

(i.e. 40% marks in each paper and an aggregate

of 45% marks) whereas, as per the initial

notification, the General candidates had to

secure 40% marks in each paper and an

aggregate of 45% marks and the persons from

SC/ST category had to secure 33% marks in

each paper and an aggregate of 38% marks. The

Petitioner was declared to have failed the Part-1

Examination. The reason of this failure was that

privileges initially announced for the candidates

from SC/ST community were not granted to

them.

01.10.2000 Department of Telecom Services and

Department of Telecom Operations were

converted into a Public Sector Undertaking,

known as Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited

(BSNL) w.e.f. 01.10.2000. Therefore, Petitioner

became an employee of BSNL after exercising of

option for absorption.

03.10.2000 In the meantime, the Constitution (82nd)

Amendment Act, 2000 was published on

03.10.2000 in the Gazette of India which

amended Article 335 of the Constitution.

Therefore, the matter was reviewed by the

Government consequent to the insertion of the

following proviso to Article 335:

“Provided that nothing in this Article shall

prevent in making any provision in favour

of member of Scheduled Caste and

Scheduled Tribes for relaxation in

qualifying marks in any examination or

lowering the standards of evaluation for

reservation in mattes of promotion to any

class or classes or services or posts in

connection with the affairs of Union or

State.”

Accordingly, in pursuance of the enabling

proviso of Article 335 of the Constitution,

DoP&T issued instructions vide their OM dated

03.10.2000 to restore the concession/

relaxation in the matter of promotion of

candidates belonging to SC/ST by way of lower

qualifying marks for evaluation that existed

prior to 22.07.1997 with immediate effect i.e.

03.10.2000.
06.10.2000 On the basis of the aforesaid amendment, one

of the candidates namely Smt. Manjit Kaur, Sr.

TOA (G) o/o GMT Ludhiana who belonged to SC

category approached CAT, Chandigarh, which

delivered a decision in her favour in O.A. No.

513/PB/99 dated 06.10.2000. She was

declared qualified by DoT (now BSNL).

Feb., 2001 Petitioner made representations dated

04.02.2001 and 18.02.2001 requesting the

department to declare him as qualified in JAO

Examination (Part-1) relying upon the 82 nd

Amendment Act and also praying grounds of

parity based on the case of Mrs. Manjit Kaur.

But, the department paid no heed to the

aforesaid representations.

16.05.2001 Feeing aggrieved, Petitioner filed O.A. No.

165/PB/2001 before the Ld. CAT, Chandigarh,

praying for the following relief:

“Directions to Respondents be issued to

review the case of the applicant being an

SC candidate and further direct them to

declare the result of the applicant of JAO

Examination (Part-1). The case of the

 applicant be disposed off in the same

terms as in O.A. 513/PB/99 titled Manjit

Kaur-II and to further direct the

Respondents to declare the result of the

applicant as qualified after reviewing the

result as per relaxed parameters with all

consequential benefits.”

On 16.05.2001, Ld. CAT, Chandigarh passed an

order in favour of the Petitioner on 16.05.2001

by allowing the O.A. on the same terms as in

Mrs. Manjit Kaur’s case and the Respondents

were directed to declare the result of the

Petitioner as per relaxed parameters.

26.06.2001 Respondents filed a Review Application No. 72

of 2001 before Ld. CAT, Chandigarh for

recalling the order dated 16.05.2001.

02.08.2001 Ld. CAT, Chandigarh, dismissed the aforesaid

Review Application No. 72 of 2001 filed by the

Respondents, vide order dated 02.08.2001.

22.10.2001 Being aggrieved of the dismissal order in Review

Application, dated 02.08.2001, the Respondents

filed CWP No. 15467-CAT of 2001 before

 Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana.

However, Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and

Haryana dismissed the aforesaid Writ Petition

vide order dated 22.10.2001.

01.04.2002 Along with the Petitioner, 9 other candidates of

Punjab and Haryana attained the similar

benefit The Petitioner was declared to be

qualified the Examination (Part-1) on

01.04.2002 and was allowed to appear in the

Examination (Part-2).

2002 Feeling aggrieved from the order dated

22.10.2001 of Hon’ble High Court of Punjab

and Haryana in CWP No. 15467-CAT of 2001,

the Respondent filed SLP No. 16840 of 2002

(Later converted to Civil Appeal No. 2383 of

2008) before this Hon’ble Court. The copy of

Special Leave Petition No. 16840 of 2002 (Later

converted to Civil Appeal No. 2383 of 2008)

before this Hon’ble Court is being annexed

herewith as ANNEXURE P-1. (Page to )

01.06.2004 The Petitioner qualified the Examination (Part-

2) purely on merit and was appointed as Junior

Accounts Officer in Amritsar.

2004-2008 The Petitioner worked to the entire satisfaction

of the higher authorities.

08.10.2008 The Petitioner was regularly promoted to the

post of Accounts Officer.

15.10.2008 The Petitioner assumed duties as regular

Accounts Officer in the office of GMTD Amritsar

of Punjab Circle.

01.04.2008 That vide impugned order of the date, this

Hon’ble Court disposed of the Civil Appeal No.

2383 of 2008 on 01.04.2008 in favour of the

Respondents and against the petitioner interalia

holding that the benefit was withdrawn by the

Government of India vide office memorandum

dated 22.07.1997.

02.12.2012 The petitioner herein joined again Telephone

Supervisor Operative as after reversal from

Account Officer because the abovesaid Civil

Appeal was dismissed.

29.08.2013 The petitioner herein filed O.A. No. 1197 of

2013 before Ld. CAT Chandigarh challenged the

reversal order passed by competent authority.

 Vide order of the date, the ld. CAT dismissed

the OA on the grounds that the civil appeal filed

by the respondent was decided against the

petitioner herein by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

15.07.2014 Vide Judgment of the date, the constitution

bench of this Hon’ble Court has set aside the

OM dated 22.07.1997 in civil appeal no. 6046-

6047 of 2004. The copy of order dated

15.07.2014 passed in Civil Appeal No. 6046-

6047 of 2004 by this Hon’ble Court is being

annexed herewith as ANNEXURE P-2.

(Page to )

It is submitted that after two years of the

pronouncement of the impugned Judgment by

this Hon’ble Court, the respondent was reverted

back to the earlier lower post in 2012 and

thereafter the petitioner filed representation to the

concerned authorities. That after reversal from

higher post to lower post and the dismissal of OA

of the petitioner in CAT the petitioner was leaving

no remedy but to await the outcome of the matter

pending before the constitution bench regarding

the same O.M. This Hon’ble Court vide its order

dated 15.07.2014 passed in Civil Appeal No.

6046-6047 of 2004 quashed the O.M. dated

 22.07.1997 It is due this reason that the

petitioner is filing Review Petition.

.07.2014 Hence the Review Petition

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2014

IN

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2383 of 2008

(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 16840 of 2002

IN THE MATTER OF

In the High In this In this

Court Court in Hon’ble
Civil Court in
Appeal Review

Rajesh Kumar-I Respondent Respondent Petitioner

Telephone Supervisor
(Operative),
Office of General
Manager,
Telecom Dist (BSNL),
Amritsar, Punjab

Versus

1. Union of India Petitioner Petitioner Contesting

through Chairman, No.1 No.1 Respondent
Telecom Commission, No.1
Ministry of
Communication,
Department of Telecom,
Sanchar Bhawan,
New Delhi.

2. Chairman-cum- Petitioner Petitioner Contesting

Managing Director, No.2 No.2 Respondent
Bharat Sanchar Nigam No.2
Ltd., Sanchar Bhawan,
2, Ashoka Road,
New Delhi.

3. Chief General Manager, Petitioner Petitioner Contesting

B.S.N.L. Punjab No.3 No.3 Respondent
Telecom Circle, SCO No.3
102-103,
Sector-34-A,
Chandigarh
 Review Petition under Article 137 of the
Constitution of India and read with Order XL of
the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 for review of
the judgment and order dated 01.04.2008
passed by this Hon’ble Court in Civil Appeal No.
2383 of 2008.
To
The Hon'ble Chief Justice of India
And his companion Justices of the
Supreme Court of India
The humble petition of the
Petitioners above named.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH

1. That the petitioner is praying for the review of the

judgment and order dated 01.04.2008 passed by this

Hon'ble Court in Civil Appeal No. 2383 of 2008 where

by this Hon'ble Court has pleased to dispose of Civil

Appeal filed by the Respondent in their favour and

against the petitioner herein.

2. That in the humble submission of the petitioner, this

Hon'ble Court has been misled on certain substantial

questions of law involved in the peculiar facts of the

present case and on matter of record which form the

very basis of the judgment and order dated 01.04.2008

passed by this Hon'ble Court in Civil Appeal No. 2383 of

2008. Certain facts which were crucial for the decision

of the present case, though on the record escaped

notice of this Hon'ble Court.

3. That the petitioner praying for due indulgence of this

Hon’ble Court to review the judgment and final order

dated 01.04.2008 passed by this Hon’ble Court in Civil

Appeal No. 2383 of 2008 in the light of constitution

bench judgment and order dated 15.07.2014 passed by

this Hon’ble Court in “Civil Appeal No. 6046-6047 of

2004 Rohtas Bhankhar & Ors. Vs Union of India &

Anr.” whereby constitution bench set aside the O.M.

No. 36012/23/96-Estt. (Res) dated 22.07.1997. It is

pertinent to mention here that the abovementioned civil

appeal of the petitioner herein was dismissed only due

to the said O.M. dated 22.07.1997 was remained

technically operative since 22.07.1997 to 03.10.2000.

4. That, it is submitted that the petitioner herein was initially

selected and appointed as Time scale telephone

operator on 01.02.1980 in department of Telecom Govt.

of India. That, after rendering five years service in the

department, the petitioner herein became eligible for

appearing in the qualifying examination for the post

Junior Account Officer. It is submitted that the

procedure of promotion to the post of JAO is followed by

JAO (Part-I) & JAO (Part-II) examination. As per the

eligibility criteria the petitioner herein has become

eligible in the year 1985.

5. That It is most respectfully submitted, finally, the JAO

Part-I examination was held from 13 to 15 September

1997 and the petitioner participated in the aforesaid

examination. The result of said JAO part I examination

was declared on 01.08.1998 wherein the petitioner

declared failed even he secured more than 33% marks

in each paper which is sufficient to get qualify as per

relaxed parameter.

6. That the petitioner made representation before the

concerned authority to declare him qualified in JAO

Part I examination. It is submitted that the Hon’ble CAT

Chandigarh vide Judgment dated 06.10.2000 allowed

O.A. No. 513/PB/99 in the case of Manjeet Kaur,

whereby directing the competent authority declare the

result of Manjeet Kaur belonging to Schedule Caste

community. Consequently, the Petitioner also

approached CAT Chandigarh by filing O.A 165/PB/

2001 with the prayer,

“That directions to respondents be issued to review

the case of the applicant being a SC candidate an

further direct to declare the result of the applicant of

JAO Part-I Examination. The case of the applicant be

disposed of in the same terms as per judgment in O.A.

513/PB/99titled Manjit Kaur-II and to further direct

the respondents to declare her result as qualified after

 reviewing her result as per relaxed parameters with all

consequential benefits”.

7. That the Ld. CAT Chandigarh allowed aforesaid O.A. filed

by Petitioner in terms of the case Manjeet Kaur Vs UOI

in O.A 513/PB/1999 decided 06.10.2000 decided by

CAT Chandigarh directing the concerned authority to

declare the result of the Petitioner according to the

relaxed parameter.

8. That in pursuance to the order passed by Ld. Hon’ble CAT

the petitioner herein was declared qualified in the JAO

Part-I examination on 01.04.2002 after applying the

relaxed parameter as applicable for SC/ST which has

been already restored in year 2000. After qualifying the

JAO Part-I examination the petitioner herein appeared

in JAO Part-II examination held from 17 to 19

September 2003. The petitioner herein was declared

successful JAO Part-II examination on 18.05.2004 and

consequently, he was promoted on the post of JAO

(Junior Account Officer) and posted at Amritsar in

Punjab circle on probation. In the meanwhile the

respondent herein challenged the order passed by

Hon’ble CAT before in favour of petitioner herein before

Hon’ble High Court at Chandigarh. But Hon’ble High

Court dismissed the aforesaid writ petition.

9. That the respondent herein filed SLP Civil No 16840 of

2002 before this Hon’ble Court vide order dated

01.04.2008, this Hon’ble Court was pleased to allow the

Civil Appeal and set aside the order passed by the Ld.

CAT and affirmed by the Hon’ble High Court which is

bye-passing the constitutional amendment. It is

submitted that on the strength of the Ld. CAT order the

petitioner herein was allowed to appear in Part II

examination where he was declared qualified and

consequently promoted.

10. That in consequence to the order passed by this Hon’ble

Court dated 01.04.2008, the concerned authority

passed order dated 10.12.2010 reverting back the

petitioner herein to the lower post is not sustainable

and being absolutely illegal and without any basis. In

the light of these facts, the order dated 10.12.2010

reverting the applicant to the non-executive post had

proceeded on the basis of incorrect and misconceived

premises. A perusal of para 4 of the O.M. dated

03.10.2000 clearly establishes that, ‘All selections

finalized earlier shall not be disturbed.’ As the

promotions granted to the petitioner are subsequent to

the issuance of O.M. dated 03.10.2000, the promotion

as JAO and Accounts Officer cannot be cancelled as the

order dated 10.12.2010 cannot stand with legal sanctity

since the position prevailing prior to the amendment of

 Article 335 by adding a proviso has been restored with

effect from 03.10.2000 and the O.M. dated 22.07.1997

had been rendered inoperative.

11. Vide representation dated 10.05.2012 submitted to the

Director Finance in the office of respondent No. 2, the

petitioner had brought to his notice that the relaxation

in promotion in the same examination given to three

Scheduled Castes candidates of Haryana Circle namely

Sh. Dharambir, Sh. Meena and Sh. Balbir Singh

Bhumbak has neither been challenged in the higher

courts nor they have been reverted by the respondent

authorities. They have been allowed to work as

Accounts Officer/Junior Accounts Officer ever since

from the date of promotions to these posts from the

post of Senior TOAs. The applicant has further

mentioned that it is only the applicant, Smt. Amarjit

Kaur and Sh. Surinder Kumar who had been reverted

by the respondent authorities vide letter dated

10.12.2010 and another candidate namely Sh.

Gurcharan Singh, JAO had been reverted by the office

of CGMT Punjab Circle Telecom. Their reversion has

been stayed by the Hon’ble High Court.

12. From the above sequence of events, it is clearly

established that the applicant has been discriminated

against in many ways and on many occasions due to

which the applicant has been constrained to approach

 this Hon’ble Court by way of filing the review

application and praying for justice in his case by

reviewing the earlier order and restoring the petitioner

to the post of Accounts Officer on which the petitioner

had been working at the time of his illegal reversion to

the non-executive post.

12. GROUNDS:
A) Because the petitioner praying for due indulgence of

this Hon’ble Court to review the judgment and final

order dated 01.04.2008 passed by this Hon’ble Court in

Civil Appeal No. 2383 of 2008 in the light of

constitution bench judgment and order dated

15.07.2014 passed by this Hon’ble Court in “Civil

Appeal No. 6046-6047 of 2004 Rohtas Bhankhar & Ors.

Vs Union of India & Anr.” whereby constitution bench

set aside the O.M. No. 36012/23/96-Estt. (Res) dated

22.07.1997. It is pertinent to mention here that the

abovementioned civil appeal of the petitioner herein was

dismissed only due to the said O.M. dated 22.07.1997

was remained technically operative since 22.07.1997 to

03.10.2000.

B) Because as per para 4 of the order dated 03.10.2000,

the benefit of relaxation had to be extended in those

cases in which the selection had been finalized on or

after 03.10.2000. The petitioner herein again appeared

in JAO Exam. 1999 which was conducted from 29 th to

 31st October, 1999 and the re-examination on

11.12.2001. The result of the examination had been

finalized only on 29.01.2002 which was much after the

order dated 03.10.2000. Since the result of this

examination had not been finalized before the issuance

of order dated 03.10.2000, the result of the applicant

ought to have been reviewed and declared under the

relaxed standards and the applicant should have been

declared as successful.

C) Because even otherwise also the JAO Part-I

examination which had been conducted in the months

of Sep/Dec 1997 was initially scheduled to be held in

June 1996 for the vacancies which had occurred upto

1996. If the said examination was held on its scheduled

time then the benefits of with lower qualifying

marks/lesser standards of evaluation was applicable as

per old relaxation. From the above, it is evident that the

benefit of the relaxed standards was available to the

Scheduled Castes/Tribes candidates during the period

when the vacancies had occurred and existed.

D) Because there are many cases in other Circles wherein

the result of failed candidates of JAO Part-I

examination conducted in Sep/Dec 1997 had been

reviewed under the relaxed parameters with the

intervention of various Benches of the Hon’ble

CAT/High Courts. The promotions in those cases have

 never been challenged before the Hon’ble Higher Courts

and such candidates have not been reverted. This

treatment on the part of the respondents is also deeply

discriminatory and is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of

the Constitution of India.

E) Because the petitioner had completed his 02 years as

officiating JAO, 04 years as regular JAO and 2½ years

as regular Accounts Officer. While serving as JAO/AO,

the service record of the applicant had been absolutely

clean and the applicant always achieved the targets

assigned to him. As such, the experience acquired by

the applicant while serving in the promoted cadres

justifies the acquisition of qualifications required for the

management of such posts. The illegal and unjustified

reversion of the applicant has caused a big mental and

financial blow to his career prospects.

F) Because the reversion of the applicant from the

executive post to a non-executive post after rendering

almost 09 years of service and his transfer back to

Punjab Circle where he had served on an executive post

has a very demoralizing and depressing effect even on

the mental health of the applicant.

G) Because in the case of Indira Sawhney Vs. Union of

India, 1992 Sppl. 3, SCC 217, the Hon’ble Supreme

Court by a majority judgment had held that their

cannot be reservation in promotion. However, the

Hon’ble Bench was pleased to direct that the promotion

policy of the Central Government and the State

Governments wherever provided for reservation in

promotions would continue for a period of 05 years

Prior to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

the case of S. Vinod Kumar Vs. Union of India, (1996) 6,

SCC 580, the departments of the Central Government

had prescribed lower qualifying marks/lesser standards

of evaluation for granting promotion to the employees

belonging to the OBCs/Scheduled Castes/Tribes.

Before the expiry of period of 05 years, clause 4-A in

Article 16 of the Constitution of India had been

introduced vide 77th Amendment Act, 1995 providing

for reservation in promotions to the Schedules

Castes/Tribes candidates. The Hon’ble Supreme Court

in the case of S. Vinod Kumar (supra) declared that

lower qualifying marks/lesser standards of evaluation

are not permissible in the matter of promotion by virtue

of Article 335 of the Constitution of India. Due to this

reason, the Constitution of India had been amended

once again by adding a proviso to Article 335 vide 82 nd

Amendment Act, 2000, which empowered the

Government to provide relaxation in qualifications. All

these constitutional amendments had been upheld by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M.Nagraj and

others Vs. Union of India and others, (2006)8, SCC 212.

H) Because the applicant was promoted to the post of JAO

on 02.07.2004 and to the post of AO on regular basis

on 15.10.2008. In this promotion order, it had nowhere

been stipulated that the promotion granted to the

applicant on regular basis was subject to the outcome

of any pending cases pertaining to the lower qualifying

marks/lesser standards of evaluation. The only

condition stipulated was that no disciplinary/ vigilance

case should have been pending against the applicant.

I) Because the notification dated 07.02.1996 had been issued

for conducting the examination for the post of JAO in June

1996. However, after having been postponed on as many as

08 occasions, the examination was finally held in

September/December 1997. The vacancies were to be filled

upto the year 1996. In the case of Y.V. Rangaiah Vs. J.

Sreenivasa Rao and others, 1983(3) SCC 284, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court was pleased to hold that change of law will

not affect the persons who are entitled to be promoted in the

year vacancies arose. The subsequent change in the

qualifications could not have deprived the applicant of the

eligibility qualifications which was existe d in the relevant

year. The vacancies arose prior to the year 1996. The

mere fact that the examinations were conducted after

the issuance of O.M. dated 22.07.1997 withdrawing the

benefit of lower qualifying marks/lesser standards of

evaluation, cannot take away the right of the applicant

to the promotion to the posts of JAO/ Accounts Officer

 on the basis of lower qualifying marks prior to the

issuance of O.M. dated 22.07.1997.

J) Because it is further pertinent to mention that the

applicant was promoted as JAO in the year 2004 and as

Accounts Officer in the year 2008, much after the

issuance of O.M. dated 03.10.2000 which clearly states

that the position prevailing prior to 22.07.1997 had

been restored. Hence, the order dated 10.12.2010

reverting the applicant is absolutely illegal and

unsustainable.

K) Because If the order dated 10.12.2010 reverting the

applicant is allowed to stand, it will defeat the very

purpose of the constitutional amendment and the O.M.

dated 03.10.2000 by placing reliance on the cryptic

order dated 01.04.2008 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court allowing the appeal filed by the respondents

which has been procured without bringing the entire

facts to the notice of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

particularly the 82nd Constitutional Amendment and the

issuance of O.M. dated 03.10.2000, the cumulative

effect of which is the restoration of the relaxed

standards in the case of Scheduled Castes/Tribes

Candidates.

L) Because after the reversion of the applicant, the applicant

had submitted a very detailed and comprehensive

 representation dated 11.05.2011 to the office of

respondent No. 2. In the said representation, the

applicant had traced the entire background of his case

in detail in addition to the legal position and had

prayed for withdrawal of reversion orders and

restoration of the applicant to the post of Accounts

Officer. But the respondents did not take any action on

the representation and failed to withdraw the reversion

order and restore the applicant to the post of Accounts

Officer on which the applicant was serving before his

reversion to the non-executive post.

13 That the parties arrayed herein are the same as were

arrayed before the Hon'ble High Court and this Court.

14. That the petitioner has not filed any other special leave

petition against the impugned judgment and order

dated 01.04.2008 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Civil

Appeal No. 2383 of 2008.

PRAYER

In view of the facts stated and submissions made above

it is respectfully prayed that the:

a) review petition may kindly be allowed and set aside the

impugned judgment and order dated 01.04.2008

passed by this Hon'ble Court in Civil Appeal No. 2383 of

 2008 keeping view of aforementioned facts and

circumstances of the case and in the light of judgment

passed by constitution bench of this Hon’ble Court and

in the interest of justice.

b) Pass any other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court

may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice

DRAWN BY: FILED BY:

Drawn on:-
Filed on: -
(Ajay Kumar Singh)
Advocate for the Petitioner
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2014

IN

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2383 of 2008

(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 16840 of 2002

IN THE MATTER OF

Rajesh Kumar-I …..Petitioner

Versus

Union of India & Ors. … Respondent

I.A. No of 2014 Application for Condonation of delay in

filing Review Petition

WITH

(P A P E R - B O O K)

(FOR INDEX: KINDLY SEE INSIDE)

ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER: (AJAY KUMAR SINGH)

 INDEX

Sl. No. PARTICULARS PAGES

1. Office Report on Limitation

2. Synopsis

3. Impugned order dated 01.04.2008

passed by this Hon'ble Court in Civil
Appeal No. 2383 of 2008 (arising out
of SLP (Civil) No. 16840 of 2002)

4. Review Petition with affidavit

5. ANNEXURE P-1
The copy of Special Leave Petition
No. 16840 of 2002 (Later converted
to Civil Appeal No. 2383 of 2008)
before this Hon’ble Court

6. ANNEXURE P-2
The copy of order dated 15.07.2014
passed in Civil Appeal No. 6046-
6047 of 2004 by the constitution
bench of this Hon’ble Court

7. I.A. No of 2014
Application for Condonation
of delay in filing the Review Petition
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2014
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2383 of 2008
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 16840 of 2002
IN THE MATTER OF
Rajesh Kumar-I …..Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. … Respondents

AFFIDAVIT

I, Rajesh Kumar, (Staff No. 182999), son of Sh. Sant Ram, F-

21/384, Sandhu Colony, Khooh Kundewala, Post, Amritsar, working
as Telephone Supervisor (Operative), Office of General Manager,
Telecom Dist (BSNL), Amritsar, Punjab at present at New Delhi, do
hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows : -

1. That I am one the Petitioner of the above mentioned matter

and am well conversant with the facts and circumstances of
the case, hence competent to swear to this affidavit.

2. That I have read the accompanying Review Petition pages

to para to and Interlocutory Applications
understood the contents thereof. The facts stated there in are
true and correct from the record of the case, which I believe to
be true.
3. That the Annexures filed herewith are true and correct copies
of their respective originals.

DEPONENT
VERIFICATION: -
Verified at New Delhi on this the day of July 2014, I the
above named deponent, do hereby verify that the contents of the
above affidavit are true and correct. No part of it is false and nothing
material has been concealed there from.
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2014
IN

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2383 of 2008

(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 16840 of 2002

IN THE MATTER OF

Rajesh Kumar-I …..Petitioner

Versus
Union of India & Ors. … Respondents

APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN

FILING THE REVIEW PETITION

To

The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India

And His Companion Justices of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
The humble petition of the
Petitioner above-named;

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the petitioner has this day filed the accompanying

Review Petition before this Hon’ble Court against the

impugned judgment and final order dated 01.04.2008

passed by this Hon'ble Court in Civil Appeal No. 2383

of 2008. Petitioner is filing the present review petition

praying for Condonation of delay of days in filing

the review petition.

2. That the facts and circumstances have been set out in

the aforesaid Review Petition. The petitioner craves

 leave of this Hon’ble Court to refer to and rely upon the

contents of the same for the sake of present

application.

3. That the delay has occurred in filing Review Petition

because of the reason that after two years of the

pronouncement of the impugned Judgment by this

Hon’ble Court, the respondent was reverted back to the

earlier lower post in 2012 and thereafter the petitioner

filed representation to the concerned authorities.

Thereafter the petitioner filed OA No. 1197 of 2013

before the Ld. CAT Chandigarh. The ld. CAT

Chandigarh dismissed the said OA on the ground that

the Civil Appeal filed by the respondent was allowed

against the petitioner by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

4. That after the dismissal of OA of the petitioner in CAT

the petitioner was leaving no remedy but to await the

outcome of the matter pending before the constitution

bench regarding the same O.M. This Hon’ble Court vide

its order dated 15.07.2014 passed in Civil Appeal No.

6046-6047 of 2004 quashed the O.M. dated 22.07.1997

It is due this reason that the petitioner is filing Review

Petition.

5. That therefore, the delay of days in filing the

instant Review Petition is neither intentional nor

deliberate and was due to the reasons beyond the

control of the petitioner.

6. That the petitioner would suffer an irreparable loss and

injury and cannot be compensated if the delay in filing

the Review Petition is not condoned.

PRAYER

It is, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the

case and in the interest of justice, most respectfully prayed that

this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:-

(i) Condone the delay of days in filing the

accompanying Review Petition against the impugned

judgement and final order dated 01.04.2008 passed

by this Hon'ble Court in Civil Appeal No. 2383 of

2008;

(ii) Pass any other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court

may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS YOUR

PETITIONER AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY

New Delhi. FILED BY:

Drawn on:-
Filed on: -
(Ajay Kumar Singh)
Advocate for the Petitioner
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2383 of 2008

(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 16840 of 2002

MEMO OF PARTIES

IN THE MATTER OF

1. Union of India
through Chairman,
Telecom Commission,
Ministry of Communication,
Department of Telecom,
Sanchar Bhawan,
New Delhi.

2. Chairman-cum-Managing
Director, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,
Sanchar Bhawan,
2, Ashoka Road, New Delhi.

3. Chief General Manager,

B.S.N.L. Punjab Telecom Circle,
SCO 102-103, Sector-34-A,
Chandigarh
….Petitioners
Versus

Rajesh Kumar-I
Telephone Supervisor (Operative),
Office of General Manager,
Telecom Dist (BSNL),
Amritsar, Punjab
…Respondent

New Delhi. FILED BY:

(Ajay Kumar Singh)

Advocate for the Petitioner