2007 Supreme(SC) 1120

2007(6) Supreme 67
Supreme Court of india
(From Karnataka High Court)
H.K. Sema & P.K. Balasubramanyan, JJ.
Rama Rao & Ors. — Petitioners
versus
M.G. Maheshwara Rao & Ors. — Respondents
Appeal (civil) 7474-7477 of 2003
[With C.A. No. 7478-7481 of 2003]
Decided on : 27-08-2007

important point
Even if the relevant rules were liable to be struck down, it was not for the Administrative Tribunal to re-enact that Rule as it thought considered proper.

Headnote:(a)Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 – Section 19 – Even though the judgment of an Administrative Tribunal may only be a judgment in personam, occasionally, it could also operate as a judgment in rem and those affected by it had the right to approach the Tribunal again with an application under Section 19 of the Act when they are affected as a consequence of the earlier decision and are entitled to seek reconsideration of the view taken in the earlier decision. (Para 5)

       (1997) Supp 3 SCR 56 – Relied upon.

       (b)Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 – Section 19 – The assistants who were not impleaded in the earlier proceeding, had a remedy to approach to the Tribunal – The assistants could say that since they were not parties to the earlier proceedings, they were not bound by it and they are entitled to ignore the decision therein and that the said decision cannot affect them since it would be a decision that is void in law for non-compliance with the rules of natural justice. (Para 5)

       (1997) Supp 3 SCR 56 – Relied upon.

       (c)Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 – Section 19 – When the High Court entertained the writ petition it had the jurisdiction to do so and it had jurisdiction also to consider what was the effect of the earlier order or the proceeding before it and whether the earlier order was legal and justified. (Para 5)

       (1997) Supp 3 SCR 56 – Relied upon.

       (1997) 3 SCC 261 – Noticed.

       (d)Judicial Review – Even if the relevant rules were liable to be struck down, it was not for the Administrative Tribunal to re-enact that Rule as it thought considered proper – Decision rendered by the Administrative Tribunal was totally unsustainable and the question of promotion has to be on the basis of the Rules as they stood prior to the interference with it by the Tribunal– There is no merit in Stenographer’s appeal. (Paras 7, 9 and 10)

       AIR 1990 SC 535 – Relied upon.

       (1985) 2 SCC 457; (1995) 4 SCC 151 – Distinguished impliedly.

       (e)Administration of Justice – It was not proper for the Vice Chairman of the Tribunal to quash the rules and prescribe his own qualifications sitting on the judicial side and implement the same sitting on the administrative side – He ought to have waited for the Chairman to be appointed and implement the same – A thing that is to be done has not only to be done properly but also appear to be done properly. (Para 8)

       (f)Service Law – Order of the High Court declaring framing of rules by the Tribunal and consequent promotions of the stenographers as void upheld – Directed to undertake a fresh exercise of promoting the officers from both streams in accordance with the Rules framed in that regard – Also directed that no recovery shall be made from the salaries paid to the stenographers in regard to the period they have worked in their promoted posts on the ground that their promotions have now been quashed – Appeals by assistants allowed. (Paras 11 to 13)

       Facts of the case :

       The Karnataka Administrative Tribunal was constituted on 6.10.1986. The Government of Karnataka sanctioned the cadre strength and framed the Cadre and Recruitment Rules, 1986. The appointments of stenographers were made in the year 1988. The Government published on 23.9.1992 a new set of draft rules. The stenographers filed objections to the draft rules. On 31.5.1993 the Government published the Recruitment Rules rejecting the objections. Thereupon the stenographers filed application Nos.2250-2252 of 1993 and 2253-2258 of 1998 before the Administrative Tribunal challenging the prescription of degree and test as qualifications for promotion to the post of Junior Judgment Writer in the Rules. The assistants or any one that would be affected from that branch by an adjudication, were not impleaded in the proceeding. The Administrative Tribunal allowed the applications and quashed the Rules in part. Essentially, what the Administrative Tribunal did was to alter the qualifications provided for promotions in the cadre of stenographers by doing away with the higher qualifications prescribed. The striking down of the Rules was done by a Bench presided over by the Vice-Chairman of the Administrative Tribunal. Thereafter the vice-chairman proceeded to promote the stenographers on the basis of the qualification prescribed by him on the judicial side. The assistants felt aggrieved by the promotions thus given. They, therefore, moved application Nos.3585-3592 of 1995 and other connected applications before the Administrative Tribunal challenging the decision of the Administrative Tribunal dated 6.7.1994 as also the promotions given to the respondents in those applications, the promoted stenographers. The applications were opposed on various grounds. By order dated 21.4.1997, the Administrative Tribunal dismissed the applications. It was challenged by the Assistants before the High Court. The High Court, allowed the writ petitions in part holding that the Administrative Tribunal had no jurisdiction to alter the qualifications for promotions as it had done and since promotions were made on the basis of this unauthorized interference with the Rules prescribing qualifications for promotions, the promotions were bad.

       Findings of the Court :

       Order of the High Court declaring framing of rules by the Tribunal and consequent promotions of the stenographers as void upheld.

       Result : Appeal by stenographers dismissed while that by assistants allowed.