Promotion Dispute Judgment: CAT Rules in Favor of Merit List Position

In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court of India has delivered a crucial judgment in a promotion dispute case. The case involves a dispute over promotion based on merit list rankings, with the CAT ruling in favor of the position on the merit list. The judgment has far-reaching implications for similar cases in the future.


  • Shri Jagmohan Yadav sought promotion as Postman based on his rank in the merit list matching the number of vacancies.
  • The CAT allowed the Writ Petition and remitted the matter for fresh consideration, resulting in Shri Jagmohan Yadav being promoted.
  • The appellants filed a Review against the CAT’s decision, which was dismissed.
  • The CAT directed the publication of the results for all successful candidates against 17 vacancies in Kanpur Head Post Offices.
  • The appellants opposed the claim of Shri Jagmohan Yadav, leading to his approach to the CAT in O.A. No.888/2009.
  • The CAT’s order highlighted the scope of the decision in O.A. No.546/1992, which formed the basis of Shri Jagmohan Yadav’s claim.
  • The CAT held that the cancellation of the examination by the Chief Post Master General in 1992 was quashed in its entirety.
  • Shri Jagmohan Yadav’s representation for promotion as a Postman was based on his ranking in the merit list and the vacancies available.
  • The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants.
  • The Review filed by the appellants was also dismissed through a subsequent order dated 21.08.2017.

Also Read: Solapur Municipal Corporation vs. Majarewadi Gram Panchayat Employees


  • The issue under consideration is whether the respondent’s claim for promotion is valid based on his position at Serial No.12 in the merit list.
  • The respondent argues that being at Serial No.12 makes him eligible for promotion as one of the Delivery Agents to fill the 17 vacancies of Postman.
  • The court has extensively heard arguments on this matter.

Also Read: Vaishali Wadhwani and Mamta Mishra vs. MPPSC: Upholding Justice and Integrity in Recruitment Processes


  • The Additional Solicitor General appeared for the appellants.
  • Shri S.D. Singh was the learned counsel for the respondent.
  • The court perused the appeal papers, including additional documents brought on record along with an application.
  • Objections raised by the learned counsel for the respondent contending that the documents are against the admitted factual position.
  • In cases where records are maintained by the employer, and the authenticity of the documents is not in doubt, the Court can consider the documents brought on record in the appropriate manner.
  • Proceed to examine the issue by taking note of all relevant material.

Also Read: Jagdishchandra v. Joint Charity Commissioner & Ors.


  • The CAT held that all candidates who appeared for the examination, including the respondent, should have their results announced.
  • The CAT concluded that the unfilled vacancies in Kanpur Head Post Offices should have been filled by staff from Banda Division or any other applicable Division.
  • A common merit list for Delivery Agents in Kanpur Region was maintained, including divisions like Fatehpur, Fatehgarh, and Banda.
  • The Review Petition clarified that Shri Jagmohan Yadav had obtained 137 marks while the respondent had 127.5 marks.
  • The High Court affirmed the CAT’s order, stating that the fundamental consideration remains unchanged despite the marks difference.
  • The Notification dated 24.05.1991 indicated that qualified candidates may need to go to other Divisions for vacancies as per availability.
  • In the selection process, candidates were directed to other Divisions due to lack of vacancies in Banda Division.
  • The CAT directed that results of all candidates be declared and the 17 vacancies in Kanpur Head Post Offices be filled.
  • The focus should be on the Notification dated 24.05.1991 while analyzing the promotion process and vacancy positions.
  • The critical issue is determining whether the respondent’s rank at Serial No.12 was in the common merit list of all divisions or only in Banda Division.
  • One of the factors considered by the CAT was the respondent claiming to have scored higher marks than Shri Jagmohan Yadav.
  • The CAT ordered the declaration of results for all candidates and the filling of the 17 vacancies.
  • The CAT’s consideration in favor of the respondent was not justified.
  • In the Review Petition before the High Court, it was clarified that the respondent had not secured more marks than Shri Jagmohan Yadav.
  • Despite this clarification, the CAT seemed to have wrongly assumed the respondent to be more meritorious than the candidate who was granted benefit due to earlier orders.


  • All pending applications are disposed of.
  • The orders impugned in the appeals are not sustainable.
  • The instant appeals are allowed with no order as to costs.
  • Orders dated 17.01.2011 in O.A. No. 888/2009 and order dated 17.01.2011 in Review Application No. 77/2010 by the CAT, along with the order dated 19.07.2013 passed in Writ Appeal No. 9549/2011 and the order dated 21.08.2017 passed in Review Petition No. 285160/2013 by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad are set aside.


Case Number: C.A. No.-006124-006125 / 2019

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *