2008 Supreme(SC) 704

2008(3) Supreme 262
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Andhra Pradesh High Court)
S.B. Sinha & V.S. Sirpurkar, JJ.
A. Satyanarayana & Ors. — Petitioners
versus
S. Purushotham & Ors. — Respondents
Appeal (civil) 2963 of 2008
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 17064 of 2006)
Civil Appeal No. 2964 of 2008
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10137 of 2007)
Decided on : 24-04-2008

IMPORTANT POINT
A rule may be amended to address hardship faced by a section of employees in the past, but that cannot be a ground to deprive another section of their constitutional and legal right.

Headnote:(a) Administrative Law – When the State provides for two different sources as feeder posts for promotion to a higher post, it is entitled to fix quota – The Tribunal committed an error in directing a quota different than that fixed under the rule. (Para 13)

        (b) Administrative Law – A policy decision and, in particular, legislative policy should not ordinarily be interfered – However, where a policy decision as reflected in a statutory rule pertains to the field of subordinate legislation, the same would be amenable to judicial review on the ground of being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (Para 20)

        2006 (1) SCALE 108: 2006(9) Supreme 293; (2007) 2 SCC 365 – Relied upon.

        (c) Administrative Law – If the State has the power to fix a quota, the Rule underlying the legislative policy must stop at that and the necessary consequences thereof must ensue – But thereby it cannot be permitted to put a cap on promotion for the entire service period. (Para 21)

        (d) Service Law – Promotion – Nobody has a right to be promoted; his right being confined to right to be considered therefor – Similarly, the power of the State to take a policy decision as a result whereof an employee’s chance of promotion is diminished cannot be a subject matter of judicial review as no legal right is infringed thereby. (Paras 22 and 23)

        (e) Service Law – Promotion – If the number of posts is limited despite uncertainty with regard to arising of any vacancy on any higher post, the validity of such a rule would be open to question – Necessity of providing for promotional avenues has been emphasized time and again. (Paras 24 and 25)

        C.A. 991/2008 – Relied upon.

        (f) Service Law – Promotion – A rule may be amended to address hardship faced by a section of employees in the past – However that cannot be a ground to deprive another section of their constitutional and legal right. (Para 29)

        (g) Service Law – Promotion – Although the rule provided for a ration of 14:1 for promotion from PS to Assistant Secretary, it capped the number to 10 – This defeated the object and purport of the rule, namely providing promotional opportunities to the PSs – Hence held impermissible. (Para 31)

        (2003) 6 SCC 535: 2003(5) Supreme 166 – Relied upon.

       Facts of the case:

        1. Respondents herein were Private Secretaries (PSs) of the Secretaries of the Government of Andhra Pradesh. Appellants of the Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.10137 of 2007 are the Section Officers (SOs) working in the Secretariat of the Government of Andhra Pradesh.

        2. Indisputably, the post of ‘Private Secretary’ (PS) as also that of the ‘Section Officer’ (SO) are the feeder posts for promotion to the post of Assistant Secretary.

        3. By reason of GOMs No.1059 dated 15.7.1960, the State issued a notification providing for promotion to the post of Assistant Secretary also from the cadre of PSs.

        4. The PSs could be transferred to the posts of SOs by obtaining an option in that behalf as laid down in G.O. No.504 dated 21.10.1983. On or about 1.5.1984, the promotional avenue for the PSs to the post of Assistant Secretary was introduced prescribing 1:19 quota between PSs and SOs for promotion to the post of Assistant Secretary. The said ratio of 1:19 was given retrospective effect w.e.f. 6.11.1982 by GOMs.364 dated 16.6.1984.

        5. An amendment was made in the Rules by GOMs No.81 dated 21.2.1985 in terms whereof the ratio of 1:19 fixed for promotion, between the PSs and SOs was made applicable from 1.5.1984 instead of 6.1.1982. The Rules were suitably amended.

        6. Respondents herein filed an original application before the Andhra Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal questioning the validity of the said notification.

        7. By reason of a judgment and order dated 14.2.2000, the said original applications were allowed.

        8. Appellants aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith filed writ petitions before the Andhra Pradesh High Court. By reason of the impugned judgment, the said writ petitions have been allowed holding that the said Rule is not unconstitutional.

       Findings of the Court :

        The impugned Government Orders cannot be sustained.

       Result : Appeal allowed with cost.