SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, K.M. JOSEPH, JJ.
D. RAGHU AND OTHERS – APPELLANT
VERSUS
R. BASAVESWARUDU AND OTHERS ETC. – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1970-1975 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1976 OF 2009
Decided on : 05-02-2020
(a) Service law - Promotion - Right to be considered - Only in the light of the existing rules, namely, "rules in force on the date" the consideration takes place - There is no rule of absolute application that vacancies must invariably be filled by the law existing on the date when they arose. (Para 54)
(b) Service law - Restructuring of cadre - Posts of Inspector and Senior Tax Assistant came as result of restructuring - Both should have been brought into force simultaneously - However, Post of Inspector brought into force earlier than that of Senior Tax Assistant - The restructuring came into force from the date of promulgation of the Statutory Rules in case of Senior Tax Assistant. (Para 84)
(c) Service law - Promotion - Effect of restructuring of cadres - Government notifying new Rules - Taking a conscious decision not to fill vacancies in accordance with earlier Recruitment Rules - Promotions will have to be made as per new Rules - Employees from feeder cadres before restructuring not entitled to promotion. (Para 86)
(d) Constitutional law - Challenge to statutory Rules - Either it has to be upheld or declared ultra vires if warranted or read down if possible. (Para 89)
(e) Service law - Promotion - Instructions to hold DPC as per draft Rules but not to make orders until Rules are in place - Not proper - Promotions had to be made as per old Rules in force at the relevant time. (Para 101, 103, 104)
(f) Service law - Vacancies already filled up - Cannot be subjected to a review based on Rules relating to seniority in subsequent Rules. (Para 105)
(g) Service law - Promotion - Vacancies arising but not filled up before enforcement of new Rules - Cannot be filled up as per old Rules. (Para 106)
(h) Service law - Ban on promotion from 07.12.2002 in contemplation of new Rules - New Rules coming into force on 20.01.2003 - Vacancies occurring after 07.12.2002 - should be filled up on basis of both: seniority and entitlement by adding previous service. (Para 107)
(i) Service law - LD clerks working as such and LD clerks working as UD clerks Promotion to UD and Tax Assistant - DPC held - Promotion to all other cadres notified except Tax Assistant and UD clerk - In the meantime new Rules came into force after restructuring - Restructuring cannot take away accrued rights - Appellants had to be promoted as per old rules. (Para 117)
Facts of the case:
In this batch of cases the controversy revolves round right to promotion.
Finding of the Court:
Promotions can be made based on Draft Recruitment Rules, but not when it is in the teeth of existing Statutory Rules.
Result: Civil Appeal No. 1976 of 2009 dismissed and Civil Appeals Nos. 1970-1975 of 2009 disposed of.
JUDGMENT
K.M. Joseph, J.
Civil Appeal Nos. 1970-1975 of 2009 and Civil Appeal No. 1976 of 2009, having been heard together, and as there are certain common issues, they are being disposed of by the following common Judgment.
2. In Civil Appeal Nos. 1970-1975 of 2009, the controversy revolves around the entitlement to promotion to the post of Inspector of Central Excise. In Civil Appeal No. 1976 of 2009, on the other hand, the controversy relates to the right to be promoted to the post of U.D. Clerk and Tax Assistant in the Central Excise Department. Both these cases arise out of Original Applications (O.A.s) filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Hyderabad and the Orders of the Tribunal in the cases being questioned in a batch of Writ Petitions. As far as Civil Appeal Nos. 1970-1975 of 2009 are concerned, the CAT allowed O.A. 1362 of 2002 and directed the appellants in Civil Appeal Nos. 1970-1975 of 2009 to be considered for promotion to the post of Inspectors. They were originally recruited as Data Entry Operators (DEOs) Grade 'A' and had been working as Data Entry Operators Grade 'B' from the year 2000. In short, the appellants, as applicants before the Tribunal, had called in question the legality of Notice dated 05.11.2002 seeking to confine the promotion to the post of Inspector, to category of Tax Assistant, Upper Division (UD) Clerk, Stenographer Grade-II, etc., with certain years of experience, for promotion. Six Writ Petitions came to be filed, including by the Union of India and the official respondents, challenging the said verdict by which the appellants were also directed to be considered. A Division Bench of the High Court proceeded to consider the matter. Justice G. Bikshapathy wrote an opinion allowing the Writ Petitions, setting aside the Order of the Tribunal. The other learned Judge, who constituted the Division Bench, wrote a separate concurring Judgment, and thus, the Writ Petitions came to be allowed. What is found by the High Court is that the Writ Petitioners were having a legal right, under the erstwhile Rules which were made in the year 1979, to be considered for promotion to the vacancies which arose prior to the Rules which came to be made with effect from 07.12.2002 in regard to the post of Inspector. The High Court also found that it was only when the Rules were made in the year 2003 that the restructuring in the Department, to which the Cabinet gave its approval on 19.07.2001, came into effect. Regarding vacancies arising after 07.12.2002, it was left undecided.
3. As far as Civil Appeal No. 1976 of 2009 is concerned, it arises from O.A. 1040 of 2003, again decided by the CAT, Hyderabad.
4. The impugned Order of the High Court reveals that the High Court allowed the Writ Petition filed against the Order of the Tribunal following the Judgment of the High Court in the Writ Petitions which formed the subject matter of the controversy relating to Inspectors and which is the subject matter of Civil Appeal Nos. 1970-1975 of 2009. In other words, following the principle that the vacancies must be filled-up in accordance with the extant Rules, the court found that promotions to the post of U.D. Clerk and Tax Assistant must be effected on the basis of the rights crystallized under the 1979 Rules, as amended.
A LOOK AT THE RULES
THE 1979 RULES REGARDING POST OF INSPECTOR
5. In 1979, the Rules known as the Central Excise and Land Customs Department Group 'C Posts Recruitment Rules, 1979, came to be enacted (in short, 'the 1979 Rules'). The Rules were made under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. In the said Rules, apart from the post of Inspector (Senior Grade){inter alia) with a scale of pay of Rs. 550-25-750-E.B.-30-900, which is shown as a post to be filled-up by promotion, there is the post of Inspector (Ordinary Grade). It is this post which has generated the controversy in Civil Ap
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.