SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Director General, Council Of Scientific And Industrial Research (CSIR) - Appellant
Versus
J.K. Prashar & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No(S). 1311-1312 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 8310-8311 of 2020)
Decided on : 29-01-2024
Service Law – Promotion – Services of respondent nos. 2 and 3 were utilised as Section Officers on attachment and there was no formal appointment of either of them as Section Officer – Promotion of respondent nos. 2 & 3 was interfered with by High Court holding them to be ineligible for the post – There was no impediment for promotion by selection of respondent No.1 to post of Under Secretary under statutory rules – Action of appellant in denying promotion to respondent no. 1 upon post of Under Secretary was rightly reversed by High Court – Impugned judgment rendered by High Court upheld.[Council of Scientific and Industrial Research Administrative Services (Recruitment & Promotion) Rules, 1982] (Paras 7, 8 and 10)
Facts of the case:
Instant appeals under Article 136 of Constitution of India are directed against Judgment dated 28th May, 2019 passed by High Court of Punjab and Haryana whereby, High Court in exercise of review jurisdiction refused to interfere with Order dated 17th December, 2018 passed in CWP No. 20984/2016. By said judgment, High Court had accepted writ petition filed by respondent no. 1 herein and reversed promotion of respondent nos. 2 and 3 on post of Under Secretary on the ground that their promotion was in violation of Council of Scientific and Industrial Research Administrative Services (Recruitment & Promotion) Rules, 1982.
Findings of Court:
Impugned judgment rendered by High Court does not require any interference. However, present adjudication shall be confined to case of respondent no. 1 and will not be considered as a precedent.
Result : Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Mehta, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The instant appeals under Article 136 of the Constitution of India are directed against the judgment dated 28th May, 2019 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana whereby, the High Court in exercise of review jurisdiction refused to interfere with the Order dated 17th December, 2018 passed in CWP No. 20984/2016. By the said judgment, the High Court had accepted the writ petition filed by respondent no. 1 herein and reversed the promotion of respondent nos. 2 and 3 on the post of Under Secretary on the ground that their promotion was in violation of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research Administrative Services (Recruitment & Promotion) Rules, 1982 (hereinafter being referred to as ‘statutory rules’).
3. The appellant-CSIR has questioned the decision of the High Court on the ground that respondent no. 1 was not eligible to be promoted to the post of Under Secretary as he had never performed the duties of a Section Officer on independent basis and hence, he was not possessed of the eligibility criteria under the Statutory rules.
4. The extant rule of statutory rules is extracted below:-
Recruitment to this Grade shall be made by promotion, on the basis of merit from amongst Section Officers (General) and Sr. Personal Asstts.(now re-designated as Private Secretaries) who have rendered not less than 8 years of approved service in the grade of Rs. 6500-200-10,500 and on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotional Committee which shall interview the eligible candidates.
i. Vacancies in this grade occurring in a year shall be filled in the ratio of 2:1 from amongst Section Officers (Gen.) and Sr. Personal Asstts. (now redesignated as Private Secretaries). In the event of non-availability of suitable officers for filling up vacancies earmarked for a Cadre, such unfilled vacancies shall not be filled up from officers of another Cadre; and
ii. 25% of the Private Secretaries who have completed minimum six years of approved service as Sr. Personal Asstts. (now re-designated as Private Secretaries) be made to work as Section officer (Gen.) for a period of one year before they are considered for promotion to the post of Under Secretary/Administrative Officer.
Note: Governing Body also approved appointments/selections made so far as Sr. Personal Asstts., now re-designated as Private Secretaries to the post of Under Secretary/Administrative Officer (Gr. I) in the scale of Rs. 3000-4500.”
5. The High Court, upon an analysis of the factual and legal scenario found that respondent nos. 2 and 3 were promoted on the basis of certificates issued to them on 1st March, 2011 affirming that they had performed the duties of Section Officer in the year preceding the date of the DPC i.e. 5th March, 2011.
6. So far as case of respondent no. 1 is concerned, the High Court took note of the Order dated 15th March, 2004 whereby, the said respondent was formally appointed as Section Officer, which fact was not denied by the respondents in their counter to the writ petition.
7. During the course of oral submissions (supplemented by written submissions), learned counsel for the appellant has placed on record the certificates held by respondent nos. 2 and 3 whereby, they were given the benefit of one year’s experience as Section Officers for being promoted to the post of Under Secretary. A perusal of these certificates reflects that services of respondent nos. 2 and 3 were utilised as Section Officers on attachment and there was no formal appointment of either of them as Section Officer. It may be noted that the pertinent plea raised by respondent no. 1 regarding he having been appointed as Section Officer vide Order dated 15th March, 2004 was not disputed by the appellant in its reply before the High Court.
8. Another plea was taken by the appellant before the learned Tribunal that the promotion to the post of Under Secretary was to be done as per
Accrued benefits on the employee prior to the changing of the Rule cannot be denied. The right accrued on the employees cannot be denied due to the wrong application of the Rule.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of considering the rules and directions applicable at the time of the availability of the vacancy, and the entitlement of the petiti....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to adhere to the Rules and Regulations framed under the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964, particularly regarding the promo....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an employee cannot compel the employer to grant promotion if the Government's decision is supported by valid reasons and is not arbitrary.
The court established that the criteria for promotion can include unpublished guidelines and that the Chief Justice has the authority to determine suitability for promotion, which may extend beyond t....
The court established that promotions must adhere to seniority rules based on continuous service, invalidating promotions conducted without a proper inter-se seniority list.
An administrative authority has the power to grant deemed date promotions to neutralize the impact of administrative delays and policy shifts in qualification, especially when the promotional process....
Vacancies arising under older rules are not necessarily filled by those rules when new recruitment rules have been promulgated, barring vested rights.
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.