Case: P.G. Joshi &amp; Others Vs. Director General, Posts &amp; Telegraphs, New Delhi &amp; Others

1. In all these petitions and civil appeals, the question for consideration is practically the same. They are, therefore, disposed of by this common judgment.2. We will take up for consideration Civil Appeals Nos. 366-371 of 1974, 821-823, 1792, 1793 of 1973 and 1718-1721 of 1972.3. The appellants in Civil Appeals Nos. 366-371 of 1974, 821-823, 1792, 1793 of 1973 and the respondents in 1718-1721 of 1972 were working as clerks in the posts and Telegraphs Department. The appellants mentioned above were selected and appointed as Wireless Licence Inspectors. The selections were made in accordance with the provisions of Rule 279/4 of the Posts and Telegraphs Manual, Vol. IV (Establishments). The rule was promulgated by the Director General of Posts and Telegraphs with effect from March 1,1967. The rule stated that appointments to the posts of Wireless Licence Inspectors in any Division are to be made from amongst the clerks working in the Division subject to certain exceptions. The rule prescribes the conditions of eligibility and also of the necessity to pass a written test and then it providesAn official appointed as Wireless Licence Inspector shall not ordinarily be allowed to hold such a post for more than 3 years continuously at one time. An official who has worked as Wireless Licence Inspector for 3 years continuously should not ordinarily be appointed to hold such a post within the next three years. The period of tenure shall not be extended in any case except on very strong administrative grounds and the prior approval of the Director-General should be obtained.The contention of these appellants before the High Courts was that Rule 279/4 is opposed to the latter part of the decision of the Government of India dated November 15, 1958 dealing, among other things, with the post of Wireless Licence Inspectors and Town Inspectors.5. The contention of the respondents in Civil Appeals Nos. 1718-1721 of 1972 was that though. they were selected and appointed as Town Inspectors under Rule 279/3 promulgated by the Director General of Posts and Telegraphs for a period of three years, they were made permanent in the posts by virtue of the aforesaid decision of the Government of India. That decisionPosts and Telegraphs Department(Office of the Director General, Posts and Telegraphs)Dated New Delhi, the 15thNovember. 1958.ToAll Heads of CirclesSubject : Removal of certain posts the list of tenure posts included in para 6 of the Manual of appointments and allowances.The President has decided that the posts of(i) clerks and Head Postman at Port Blair Head Office., (ii) clerks in Port Blair Radio Office, (iii) Wireless Licence Inspectors, (iv) H. S. G. Sorting Inspectors and Assistant Superintendents, R. M. S. (v) Town Inspectors of Post Offices mentioned in items 8, 12, 13, 14 and 15 respectively of the list of tenure posts in this paragraph should be deleted. These posts should, however, be treated like other posts for which the rotational transfers are prescribed, the period of stay of each of official being limited to 4 years in the case of H. S. G. Sorting Inspectors (now called Sorting Assistant Superintendents) and Assistant Superintendents, R. M. S. and 3 years in the case ofNecessary amendments to Rule 60 of the P. and T. Manual, Vol. IV, will issue in due course."

Reasoning:
13. There are no materials to hold that the posts of Wireless Licence Inspector and Town Inspector have been sanctioned as separate units. No separate time-scale has been provided for Wireless Licence Inspectors and Town Inspectors and, the time-scale clerks who were appointed to these posts, continued in the same time-scale of pay of clerks. As already stated on appointment as Wireless Licence Inspectors and Town Inspectors, they were entitled to a special pay of Rs. 30/- per month. Special pay has been defined in Fundamental Rule 9The mention of the posts of Wireless Licence Inspectors or the specification of the pay of the Wireless Licence Inspectors along with those of the time scale clerks in the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Third Amendment Rules, 1973, which came into force on January 1, 1973, would not show that the posts of Wireless Licence Inspectors were separate cadreour view, the expression, in the context, can only mean transfer from one post to another and, after the member has spent some time in the post to which he has been transferred, he should be brought back to the original post. This would involve an element of rotation and this is precisely what has been done in the present case, namely, that the incumbents of the posts of Wireless Licence Inspectors and Town Inspectors are being brought back to their original posts after the expiry of the period, namely, 3 years. As we said, Rule 60 only says that the posts included therein should not ordinarily be occupied by the same officials continuously for more than the period shown against each. It does not deal with the places in which an incumbent could be rotated. The expression rotational transfer has nothing to do with the right of the incumbents to hold the posts permanently. The purpose of including these posts among the posts covered by Rule 60 was not to affect the term of employment of the Wireless Licence Inspectors and Town Inspectors, but only to provide that they can occupy the posts only for a period specified, namely, 3 years at a time. The Director General of Posts and Telegraphs was competent to pass R. 279/4 and it is not in any way inconsistent with the decision of the Government of India dated November 15, 1958.Neither the post of Wireless Licence Inspector not that of Town Inspector answers this definition. That apart, the inclusion of these posts in the list of tenure posts created administrative difficulties. That is clear from the files and notings referred to in the judgment of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) in Special Civil Applns. Nos. 1 and 240 of 1973 decided on 15-9-1973 = (reported in 1974 Lab IC 1135) (Bom.) It would, therefore, appear that the posts of Wire-less Licence Inspectors and Town Inspectors were removed from the list of tenure because they, not being permanent posts, did not fall within the definition of tenure posts. The deletion was not on account of any decision by the Government of India to make the appointments of the incumbents of these posts permanent. If that had been the decision, the language would have been different.