IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.1366-1367 OF 2004

NAGESH SINGH & ANR.

Appellant(s)

Versus

B.D. VIRDI & ORS.

Respondent(s)

O R D E R

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

These appeals by special leave are directed against the order passed

by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dated 22^nd July, 2003. The

Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in a writ petition filed by the respondent

herein set aside the order passed by the Administrative Tribunal dated 7^th

January, 1999. The order reads as under :-

“In the result these two O.As succeed and are allowed to the extent

that following the Supreme Court's Judgment in Shri Mohanty's case (supra) the

promotions made of those SC/ST candidates under Rule 13 (unamended), IES

Rules, 1961 without considering the case of the applicants in the two O.As before

us, is held by us to be legally unsustainable. Furthermore, the retrospective

-2-

operation of the amendment to Rule 13, IES Rules to the extent that the same

takes away the vested rights of the applicants and other general category

candidates is also unreasonable, arbitrary and as such violative of Articles 14 and

16 of the Constitution and is, therefore, struck down.

In the light of the above, respondents are directed to review the

impugned promotions and consider the cases of the applicants for promotions

from the date the impugned promotions were made, with all consequential

benefits. While doing so the respondents should make all efforts to protest the

promotions of reserved category candidates to the extent possible, but if it

becomes absolutely necessary to revert them from the higher posts to which they

have been promoted under the unamended or amended Rules, that may be done.

While doing so, however, any financial benefits given to them while working in the

higher posts should not be withdrawn and should be protected as personal to

them.”

Aggrieved against this order, the writ petition was filed by the

respondents herein and the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court set aside the

aforesaid direction and held that :

“We have, therefore, no other alternative but to set aside the

judgments of the Tribunal and remit the

-3-

matter back to it for consideration of the matter afresh.”

So far as CWP No.223 of 2001 is concerned, the Division Bench held

that it is not maintainable and directed the petitioners to approach the Central

Administrative Tribunal. CM No.5066 of 2001 an application made by Mr. Gyan

Prakash in this writ petition is concerned, Court decline to implead applicant as

party.

We may at outset mention that we are not concerned with the facts

relating to the CWP No.223 of 2001. We have been informed that the matter is

pending before the Tribunal pertaining to this subject. Therefore, we are not

going into the facts pertaining to CWP No.223/2001.

The present appeals were filed by two persons namely Nagesh Singh

and B.S.Bhandari who filed the O.A. before the Tribunal praying the following

reliefs :

i) “The Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to declare the applicants

having been promoted to Grade III as per Rule 8(1)(b)(i) for his

juniors have been promoted before them.

ii) That out of turn promotion from Grade IV to Grade III of the IES

to junior officers belonging to SC/ST in supersession of claims of

seniors belonging to the general category be

-4-

struck down as violative of the statutory rules of the IES, 1971 and

A 14, 16(1) and 335 of the Constitution of India,

iii)This Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to quash the impugned

amendment dated 22.9.1989 (Annexure C) amending Rule 13 as

being void,

iv) That the applicants be deemed to be promoted to Grade III of the

IES from the date their juniors have been promoted,

which were granted by the Tribunal and that have been set aside by

the Division Bench. Therefore, we are concerned with the grievance

of t