O R D E R

Arising out of impugned Judgment dated 13.02.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Petition No. 33057 of 2016, confirming the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 438 of 2016 allowing the original application, the appellants have approached this Court.

We have gone through the Judgment passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal as well as the High Court and on perusal thereto, it is apparent that the original application was allowed and the writ petition filed by the Department was dismissed relying upon the Judgment in the case of Y. V. Rangaiah & Ors. Vs. J.

Sreenivasa Rao & Ors. reported in AIR 1983 SC 852.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and during hearing, it is admitted that the Judgment of Y. V. Rangaiah (supra) has been expressly overruled by this Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors. reported in (2023) 3 SCC 773, which is further referred in the case of Anita Thakur Vs. Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission reported in (2023) INS 992.

In the case of Raj Kumar (supra), in paragraphs 28, 67 and 82, this Court has held as under: -

“28. In view of the above principles, flowing from the constitutional status of a person in employment with the State, we have no hesitation in holding that the observations in Rangaiah that posts which fell vacant prior to the amendment of Rules would be governed by old Rules and not by new Rules do not reflect the correct position of law. We have already explained that the status of a Government employee involves a relationship governed exclusively by rules and that there are no rights outside these rules that govern the services. Further, the Court in Rangaiah’s case has not justified its observation by locating such a right on any principle or on the basis of the new Rules. As there are a large number of judgments which followed Rangaiah under the assumption that an overarching principle has been laid down in Rangaiah, we have to necessarily examine the cases that followed Rangaiah. We will now examine how subsequent decisions understood, applied or distinguished Rangaiah.”

67. This is yet another case where deviating from Rangaiah’s principle this Court recognized the decision of the Government not to fill the vacancies arising prior to the amendment as per the old rules for the reason that there is a conscious decision of the Government.

82. A review of the fifteen cases that have distinguished Rangaiah would demonstrate that this Court has been consistently carving out exceptions to the broad proposition formulated in Rangaiah. The findings in these judgments, that have a direct bearing on the proposition formulated by Rangaiah are as under:

82.1. There is no rule of universal application that vacancies must be necessarily filled on the basis of the law which existed on the date when they arose, Rangaiah’s case must be understood in the context of the rules involved therein.

82.2 It is now a settled proposition of law that a candidate has a right to be considered in the light of the existed rules, which implies the "rule in force" as on the date consideration takes place. The right to be considered for promotion occurs on the date of consideration of the eligible candidates.

82.3 The Government is entitled to take a conscious policy decision not to fill up the vacancies arising prior to the amendment of the rules. The employee does not acquire any vested right to being considered for promotion in accordance with the repealed rules in view of the policy decision taken by the Government. There is no obligation for the Government to make appointments as per the old rules in the event of restructuring of the cadre is intended for efficient working of the unit. The only requirement is that the policy decisions of the Government must be fair and reasonable and must be justified on the touchstone of Article 14.

82.4 The principle in Rangaiah need not be applied merely because posts were created, as it is not obligatory for the appointing authority to fill up the posts immediately.

82.5 When there is no statutory duty cast upon the State to consider appointments to vacancies that existed prior to the amendment, the State cannot be directed to consider

”

the cases.

In view of the Judgment of the Larger Bench, in which the Judgment of Y. V. Rangaiah (supra) has been overruled, we set aside the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, confirmed by the High Court, and allow this appeal.

It has been brought to our notice that the Tribunal and the High Court have decided the issue in view of the judgment of Y. V. Rangaiah (supra), without delineating the facts of the case as pleaded in the original application and the counter affidavit/return filed by the Department. Therefore, we remit the matter back to the Tribunal to restore the original application and decide the case on its own merits, ignoring the Judgment of Y. V. Rangaiah (supra). The parties are at liberty to bring on record the subsequent events and developments by way of amendment in the pleadings.

Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of.

Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed of.

..................………....J. [ J. K. MAHESHWARI ]

...............……........J.

[ SANJAY KAROL ]

New Delhi;

FEBRUARY 16, 2024.

ITEM NO.38 COURT NO.9 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 16365/2017

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 13-02-2017 in WP No. 33057/2016 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Madras)

THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR BSNL CORPORATE OFFICE & ORS. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS S. SHOBA Respondent(s)

Date : 16-02-2024 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL For Petitioner(s) Mr. Nikhil Majithia, AOR Mr. Neeleshwar Pavani, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Abhishek Kaushik, Adv.

Ms. Swati Roy Prasad, Adv.

Mr. Kumar Mihir, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

Leave granted.

The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order.

Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed of.

(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (NIDHI WASON)

ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER

(Signed order is placed on the file)