IMPORTANT POINT
Even if in some cases, erroneous promotions had been given contrary to the Service Rules and consequently such employees have been allowed to enjoy the fruits of improper promotion, an employee cannot base his claim for promotion contrary to the statutory Service Rules as incorrect promotion cannot be a ground to claim erroneous promotion by perpetrating infringement of the Rules.

Headnote:(i) Service Law-Erroneous promotions given contrary of Service Rules-Such employees allowed to enjoy fruits of improper promotion-An employee cannot base his claim for promotion contrary to statutory Service Rules in law courts-Incorrect promotion either given erroneously by the department by misreading Rules or pursuant to judicial orders contrary to Rules-Cannot be a ground to claim erroneous promotion-Statutory Service Rules must be applied strictly-Technical Service Rules of Indian Council of Agriculture Research enforced w.e.f. 1.10.1975.
       (ii) Service Law-Indian Council of Agriculture Research-Technical Service Rules enforced w.e.f. 1.10.1975-Promotions-Fitment of employees in different grades-Fitment in grade T-1-3 of category 1-Consequential accelerated promotion to grade T-2-3 of category 2 on basis of qualification-In no other case accelerated promotion on basis of educational qualification permissible-Respondents got initial fitment in grade lower than Grade T-1-3 of Category 1-They are not entitled to accelerated promotion on basis of educational qualification consequent upon initial fitment in Grade T-1-3 of category 1.
       Held : Even if in some cases, erroneous promotions had been given contrary to the said Service Rules and consequently such employees have been allowed to enjoy the fruits of improper promotion, an employee can not base his claim for promotion contrary to the statutory Service Rules in law courts. Incorrect promotion either even given erroneously by the department by misreading the said Service Rules or such promotion given pursuant to judicial orders contrary to Service Rules cannot be a ground to claim erroneous promotion by perpetrating infringement of statutory Service Rules. In a court of law, employees cannot be permitted to contend that the Service Rules made effective on 1st October, 1975 should not be adhered to because in some cases erroneous promotions had been given. The statutory Service Rules must be applied strictly in terms of the interpretation of Rules as indicated in the decision of Three Judges Bench of this Court in Khetra Mohan s case. When the said Service Rules were introduced w.e.f. 1st October, 1975, one time exercise was required to be made to decide the fitment of the employees in different grades. Except in case of fitment in grade T-1-3 of Category 1 and consequential accelerated promotion to grade T-2-3 of Category 2, on the basis of qualification in no other case accelerated promotion on the basis of educational qualification is permissible. If relaxation of educational qualification is made effective on the date of enforcement of the said service Rules it will be a case of review of initial fitment. In all other cases, promotion is to be given in accordance with the said Service Rules and not otherwise. The respondents in these appeals were not entitled to get initial fitment in grade T-1-3, As a matter of fact, they got initial fitment in grade lower than Grade T-1-3 of Category 1. Therefore, they are not entitled to accelerated promotion on the basis of educational qualification consequent upon the initial fitment in Grade T-1-3 of Category 1. The impugned decisions of the Tribunal, therefore, cannot be sustained. (Para 7)
       Further held that the question of unmerited hardship if any, and need for amendment of the Rules to remove such hardship, are matters for consideration of the Rule making authority. It is reasonably expected that the concerned authority will be sensitive to unmerited hardship to large number of its employees, if occasioned by introduction of Service Rules so that appropriate remedial measures may be taken. (Para 8)

ORDER

Leave granted.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. In Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 16873 of 1995, the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench on 25th November, 1993 in O.A. No. 992/91 is under challenge. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment has allowed the application filed by the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 in view of the fact the Indian Council of Agricultural Research having allowed large number of employees to get promotion in different units on the basis of educational qualification and the said respondents having also been given promotion on the basis of higher educational qualification should not suffer any prejudice by denying such promotions on the ground that the Technical Service Rules of Indian Council of Agriculture Research enforced with effect from 1.10.1975 do not permit such promotion. The Tribunal has also proceeded on the footing that if the said respondents had reached the grade of T-1-3 category 1 even on promotion, the said respondents, having requisite qualification for holding the posts in Grade T-2-3 of category 2, was entitled to accelerated promotion to the said T-2-3 grade.

3. It may be indicated that in a similar case, the Indian Council of Agricultural Research and Director, Central Tabacco Research Institute, Rajamundry challenged the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Cuttack Bench against the judgment of the said Tribunal in favour of one Shri Khetra Mohan Das.

4. A three Judge s Bench of this Court has considered the import of Rule 5-1 and 7-2 of the said Service Rules coming into force on 1st October 1975. It has been clearly indicated in the said decision of this Court in 1994 (6) J.T. 482 (SC) = 1994 Suppl (3) SCC 595 that the question of fitment in grade T-1-3 in category No. 1 and consequential accelerated promotion to grade T-2-3 in category No. 2 on the basis of educational qualification of such employee on the date of enforcement of the said service Rules in an one time exercise. If an employee does not get fitment on the date of enforcement of the said Rules in the grade T-1-3 of category I, the question of accelerated promotion to Grade T-2-3 of category 2 on the basis of educational qualification can not arise. It has been clearly indicated that despite higher educational qualification required for holding the post in Grade T-2-3, if the initial fitment has not been made in Grade T-1-3 such employee is not entitled to claim accelerated promotion to Grade T-2-3 of category 2. Such employee can come to the higher grade only on the basis of promotion as envisaged in Rule 7. It may however be indicated at this stage that later on there has been some relaxation in the matter of requisite educational qualification for holding the post in grade T-2-3. It has been held in the case of Khetra Mohan Das that promotion cannot be given contrary to the said Service Rules. Preolsely for the said reason, the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench in Khetra Mohan s case was set aside.

5. Mr. De, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents in SLP (C) No. 16873 of 1995 has, however, submitted that the decision rendered in Khetra Mohan s case should not be taken into consideration for deciding the correctness of the impugned judgment of the Tribunal. In the case of Khetra Mohan the claim of promotion of a direct recruit was involved and the claim of promotion of in-service employees in view of long experience over the years did not come up for consideration in the said case. Mr. De, has also submitted that the respondents in this case were in the pay scale of Rs. 425-700 before 1st January, 1977. Therefore, their cases were required to be considered differently. Mr. De has also submitted that in any event, hostile discrimination has been made to these respondents. Large number of employees similarly circumstanced have got promotion but the Institute for inexplicable reasons chose not to challenge such order for promotions

Click Here to Read the rest of this document