Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(SC) 842

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KAROL, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JJ.
S.P. Chandrakar – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 9833 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C.) No. 8726 of 2024)
Decided On : 30-07-2026

Advocates appeared
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Padmesh Mishra, Adv. Mr. Shivam Shukla, Adv. Mr. Sameer Singh, Adv. Ms. Shipra Singh Mishra, Adv. Ms. Neelam Singh, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Ankita Sharma, AOR Mr. Arjun D Singh, Adv. Ms. Ishika Neogi, Adv. Mr. Bishwajit Dubey, A.A.G. Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Standing Counsel, Adv. Mr. Ravinder Kumar Yadav, AOR Mr. Yashvardhan Shah, Adv. Mr. Vivek Sharma, Adv. Mr. Akshit Awasthi, Adv. Mr. Vikrant Singh Bais, AOR Mr. Neema Singh, Adv. Mr. Shubham Gupta, AOR Ms. Prerna Gupta, Adv. Mr. Praween Gupta, Adv.

The authority empowered to frame statutory rules holds the inherent power to amend or rescind them. Provisions requiring the laying of such rules before a legislature are construed as directory in the absence of specified invalidating consequences, meaning procedural non-compliance does not render the rules void.

Headnote:(A) Cooperative Societies Act - Section 55(1) - Power to frame rules governing terms and conditions of employment includes the power to amend, vary, or rescind such rules - Such authority is inherent under the enabling statute and principles of general law. (Para 10)

(B) Statutory Interpretation - Procedural requirements - The ‘laying requirement’ for subordinate legislation before the legislative assembly under Section 95(3) of the Act is directory rather than mandatory when no specific consequences for non-compliance are stipulated. Failure to follow this procedure does not invalidate the exercise of statutory power. (Paras 11, 13, 14)

(C) Administrative Law - Validity of action - A wrong reference to a specific power or nomenclature of an order does not vitiate the action if the authority otherwise possesses the legal power to perform the act under the governing statute. (Para 15)

Facts of the case:
A dispute arose between two employees regarding a promotion, centering on whether a specific clause in the service rules permitted the promotion of technical staff to administrative positions. The service rules were allegedly amended by an administrative order issued by the regulatory authority. Challenges were raised regarding the validity of this amendment, arguing that the registrar lacked the power to amend rules and that the procedural mandate to lay such rules before the legislature was not satisfied.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the regulatory authority possessed the statutory power to frame, amend, and delete service rules. It held that the power to regulate service conditions inherently includes the power to modify, and that procedural lapses regarding the tabling of rules before the legislative assembly do not render the rules void, as such provisions are directory in the absence of explicit invalidating consequences.

Issues: 1. Whether the regulatory authority had the power to amend service rules through an administrative circular. 2. Whether the requirement set out in the enabling statute to lay rules before the legislative assembly is mandatory or directory, and whether non-compliance invalidates the rules.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the authority vested with rule-making power holds the implied power to amend or rescind those rules. Following established principles of statutory interpretation, the court determined that the legislative laying clause is directory. Consequently, the validity of the rules remains intact despite the absence of formal legislative tabling, provided the power to frame such rules exists under the primary statute.

Result: Appeal allowed.

Table of Content
1. employment disputes are adjudicated based on the relevant service rules and statutory provisions under the cooperative societies act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 7 , 8 , 9)
2. the authority vested with the power to frame rules inherently possesses the power to amend or rescind them under the general clauses act. (Para 6 , 10)
3. statutory provisions requiring rules to be laid before the legislative assembly are directory in the absence of prescribed consequences for non-compliance. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. an administrative action is valid if supported by existing statutory power, regardless of the nomenclature or title assigned to the document. (Para 15)
5. setting aside erroneous judicial findings and ensuring restoration of seniority and benefits for the aggrieved employee. (Para 16 , 17)

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Karol, J.

Leave Granted.

2. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and final order dated 02.02.2024 passed by the learned Division Bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur in Writ Appeal No. 338 of 2023, which affirmed the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 31.07.2023 in WPS No. 1799 of 2011 setting aside his promotion order 30.12.2010 to the post of Additional Manager, and one Kishor Bagh, the original writ petitioner (respondent No. 5), being promoted on a notional basis vice him.

3. The appellant and the original writ petitioner, who is respondent no. 5 before us, are both employees of the District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd, Raipur¹[DCCBL]. Service in the Bank is governed by the Chhattishgarh Ke Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Karmachari Seva (Niyojan, Nibandhan, Tatha Unki Karya Sthiti) Niyam, 1982/ Chhattisgarh District Cooperative Central Bank Employee Service (Employment, Terms and their Working Conditions) Rules, 1982²[Rules 1982] that have been brought in by virtue of Section 55 of the Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960³[Act, 1960].

4. The dispute concerns promotion lists prepared after the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Chhattisgarh substituted rule 5 (3) (a, b and c) with effect from 4th July 2005. In the year 2005-06, a gradation list had been prepared of the Class-I officers of the Bank, but the appellant (S.P. Chandrakar) was left out. In the subsequent year, he was included after making an application for correction, but respondent no. 5 (Kishor Bagh) was aggrieved by the placement of the appellant in the gradation list. In the seniority list published on 06.11.2008 for the year 2007-08, the appellant was mentioned at Serial No. 1 and respondent no. 5 was mentioned at Serial No. 2. Aggrieved, respondent no. 5 challenged the placement of the appellant in the gradation list. Then, when it came to the post of Additional Manager, the appellant was placed on that list so was respondent no.5. The objection of respondent no. 5 qua the appellant is that the appellant’s original appointment was on a technical post (Assistant Engineer) and the post of Additional Manager is a non-technical/administrative post and as such, in view of Niyam 5(3)(a) of the Rules 1982, the appellant could not have been promoted. When the list of eligible candidates was published on 01.12.2010, the appellant was at serial no. 1 and respondent no. 5 was at serial no. 2. A further representation was made on 6th May 2010 by respondent no. 5 making the case as above. Another representation was made by technical employees, including the appellant, seeking to delete the bar in Rule 5(3)(a), and on 13.08.2010, the Additional Registrar issued a circular stating the rule was deleted. Despite respondent no.5's objections, the Registrar Cooperative Societies issued directions to the Chief Executive Officer of DCCBL to proceed as per the amendment. The appellant was promoted to the position of Additional Manager, pursuant to the Departmental Promotion Committee recommendation dated 20th December 2010 vide promotion order dated 30th December 2010.

Challenging the promotion of the appellant, respondent no.5 file

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(SC) 842

SUPREME COURT OF INDIASANJAY KAROL, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JJ.S.P. Chandrakar – AppellantVersusState of Chhattisgarh & Ors. – RespondentCivil Appeal No. 9833 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C.) No. 8726 of 2024)Decided On : 30-07-2026

Cases Referred (12)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KAROL, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JJ.
S.P. Chandrakar – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 9833 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C.) No. 8726 of 2024)
Decided On : 30-07-2026