Shambhu Singh Meena & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.10090-92/1992
(With SLP(C) Nos.10670, 10329, 12693-94, 17048-49 of 1993 and 10316-21 of 1994)
(With SLP(C) Nos.10670, 10329, 12693-94, 17048-49 of 1993 and 10316-21 of 1994)
Petitioner: Shambhu Singh Meena & Ors.
Respondent: State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Apeal: Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.10090-92/1992
(With SLP(C) Nos.10670, 10329, 12693-94, 17048-49 of 1993 and 10316-21 of 1994)
(With SLP(C) Nos.10670, 10329, 12693-94, 17048-49 of 1993 and 10316-21 of 1994)
Judges: A.M.AHMADI,CJI, G.T.NANAVATI, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 19, 1995
Head Note:
SERVICE AND LABOUR LAW
Promotion
Promotion on merits Rajasthan Administrative Services Rules 1954 – Rule 28B(ii) Explanation – Held that Rule requires record of the officer to be outstanding or consistently very good – and it should be so for entire period under consideration – The Tribun-al & High Court held to have correctly construed the Explanation – Amendment made to Rules on 30-11-1991 cannot apply. Appeal dismissed.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. On being selected by the Departmental Promotion Committee (For short ‘DPC’), on merit basis, the petitioners in SLP(C) Nos.10090-92 of 1992, 10329, 12693-94 of 1993 and 10316-21 of 1994 were appointed by promotion to the Rajasthan Administrative Service, in the merit quota, by two separate orders dated 26.2.1988. They were promoted to the post carrying Junior Scale in that Service. Similarly, the petitioners in SLP(C) No.10670 of 1993 were promoted to the post carrying Selection Grade in that Service. In SLP(C) Nos.17048-49 of 1993 filed by the State, Respondent Nos.3 and 4 were promoted to the Selection Grade in the Rajasthan Accounts Service. All these promotions were given against the vacancies of the years 1981-82 to 1986-87. These promotions were challenged by the contesting respondents by filing appeals in the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, on the ground that they were not in accordance with the Rules, inasmuch as those promotees did not have outstanding or very good record for all the 7 years preceding the year of their selection. The Tribunal upheld the challenge and set aside those orders of promotion. Therefore the petitioners filed writ petitions in the Rajasthan High Court challenging the orders passed by the Tribunal; but, did not succeed. Hence, these SLPs.
2. We are told by the learned counsel appearing for the parties that the Rules regarding selection on merit basis are almost the same, not only for the Rajasthan Administrative Services and Rajasthan Accounts Services but also for other State Services. We, therefore, refer to the Rajasthan Administrative Services Rules only. Rule 28-B of the Rajasthan Administrative Services Rules, 1954 lays down the criteria, eligibility and procedure for promotion to junior, senior and other posts and cadre in the Service. Sub-rule (11) of that Rule provides that the Committee shall prepare a list on the basis of merit and as per the criteria for promotion laid down by the Rules. Explanation to that sub-rule is relevant for our purpose and it reads as under:-
“Explanation:- For purpose of selection for promotion on the basis of merit, officers with “Outstanding’ or consistently “Very-Good” record shall only be selected and their names arranged in the order of seniority.”
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the relevant Rule, that is, the Explanation to sub-rule (11) does not prescribe how many years’ service record should be considered by the DPC and for how many times during that period the record should be outstanding or consistently very good. The DPCs and other Administrative authorities who had to construe, execute and apply the Rule construed the requirement of the Rule as 5 outstanding or very good out of 7 years’ record. The High Court, therefore, should have accepted that construction and should not have taken a different view. In support of this proposition the decisions of this Court in Desh Bandhu Gupta & Co. v. Delhi Stock Exchange Association (1979) 3 SCR 373 and in K.P.Varghese v. ITO, Ernakulam 1981 (4) SCC 173 were relied upon. It was also contended that the High Court should have made its decision prospective in operation as it would now be harsh to revert those promotees after so many years, particularly when they have gone higher by two steps. For support, the decisions in State Bank of Hyderabad v. Rangachary JT 1992 (4) 509 SC = (1994) Supp. (2) SCC 479 and in D.K.Sahni v. Managing Director, Manganese Ore India Ltd. (1992) 4 SCC 201 were relied upon.
4. The learned Solicitor General drew our attention to one more decision of this Court in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B.Karunakar JT 1993 (6) SC 1 = (1993) 4 SCC 727 and submitted that the courts can make law made by them prospective in operation to prevent unsettlement of the settle positions, to prevent administrative chaos and to meet the ends of justice.
5. Therefore, the question which we have to consider is whether the Rule was so construed and consistently applied as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners drew our attention to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State wherein it is stated that prior to the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Randhir Singh’s case (in the year 1990) “it was never contemplated or held as a matter of practice that all the APAR must be consistently outstanding or very good” and that for the purpose of selection for promotion on merit basis a person having 5 out of 7 outstanding or very good was considered fit. In an earlier case the State of Rajasthan had taken similar stand, as can be seen from the decision in the State of Rajasthan v. Rajendra Kumar Godika 1993 Suppl. (3) SCC 150, though that case related to promotion in Rajasthan Education Service.
6. The contesting respondents in their counter affidavit have denied that the rule was so understood or that it was consistently applied in that manner. It may be stated that the petitioners had not raised such a plea before the Tribunal and, therefore, the Tribunal had no occasion to record any finding on this point. It was not raised before the High Court also. What was urged before the High Court was that DPC is a high power committee and the recommendations made by it are after going through the records of service and, therefore, the Tribunal ought not to have interfered with its selection.
7. The learned counsel for the contesting respondents drew our attention to the copies of the judgments of the Tribunal and the Rajasthan High Court annexed with their affidavits. In the Judgment delivered by the Tribunal on 11.11.1983 it has been observed : “We have been consistently holding that the ACRs/APARS of the officers pertaining to 7 (seven years) including the year of selection should either be “Very Good” or “outstanding” if they have to be selected on the basis of merit as per the Notification dated 11.4.1979. After the passing of the said order the DPC again met and did not select those who did not possess the outstanding or very good record for a period of 7 years. This selection was again challenged before the Rajasthan High Court by Mahesh Prasad Mathur and Suresh Chander Tayal but the High Court dismissed the petitions while holding that the view taken by the Tribunal was correct. The judgment delivered by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.4204 of 1990 also indicates that in the year 1984 the DPC had selected only those officers whose confidential reports were outstanding or consistently very good for all the 7 years. In view of this material on record it is not correct to say that the DPCs had always understood the Rule as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
8. The Rule requires that the record of the officer should be outstanding or consistently very good and that would imply that it should be so for the entire period under consideration.
9. In our opinion, the Tribunal and the High Court have correctly construed the Explanation and no interference is called for. The amendment made on 30-11-1991, being subsequent to the orders of promotions which are challenged in these cases, obviously, cannot apply to these cases. Therefore, all these SLPs are dismissed.
1. On being selected by the Departmental Promotion Committee (For short ‘DPC’), on merit basis, the petitioners in SLP(C) Nos.10090-92 of 1992, 10329, 12693-94 of 1993 and 10316-21 of 1994 were appointed by promotion to the Rajasthan Administrative Service, in the merit quota, by two separate orders dated 26.2.1988. They were promoted to the post carrying Junior Scale in that Service. Similarly, the petitioners in SLP(C) No.10670 of 1993 were promoted to the post carrying Selection Grade in that Service. In SLP(C) Nos.17048-49 of 1993 filed by the State, Respondent Nos.3 and 4 were promoted to the Selection Grade in the Rajasthan Accounts Service. All these promotions were given against the vacancies of the years 1981-82 to 1986-87. These promotions were challenged by the contesting respondents by filing appeals in the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, on the ground that they were not in accordance with the Rules, inasmuch as those promotees did not have outstanding or very good record for all the 7 years preceding the year of their selection. The Tribunal upheld the challenge and set aside those orders of promotion. Therefore the petitioners filed writ petitions in the Rajasthan High Court challenging the orders passed by the Tribunal; but, did not succeed. Hence, these SLPs.
2. We are told by the learned counsel appearing for the parties that the Rules regarding selection on merit basis are almost the same, not only for the Rajasthan Administrative Services and Rajasthan Accounts Services but also for other State Services. We, therefore, refer to the Rajasthan Administrative Services Rules only. Rule 28-B of the Rajasthan Administrative Services Rules, 1954 lays down the criteria, eligibility and procedure for promotion to junior, senior and other posts and cadre in the Service. Sub-rule (11) of that Rule provides that the Committee shall prepare a list on the basis of merit and as per the criteria for promotion laid down by the Rules. Explanation to that sub-rule is relevant for our purpose and it reads as under:-
“Explanation:- For purpose of selection for promotion on the basis of merit, officers with “Outstanding’ or consistently “Very-Good” record shall only be selected and their names arranged in the order of seniority.”
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the relevant Rule, that is, the Explanation to sub-rule (11) does not prescribe how many years’ service record should be considered by the DPC and for how many times during that period the record should be outstanding or consistently very good. The DPCs and other Administrative authorities who had to construe, execute and apply the Rule construed the requirement of the Rule as 5 outstanding or very good out of 7 years’ record. The High Court, therefore, should have accepted that construction and should not have taken a different view. In support of this proposition the decisions of this Court in Desh Bandhu Gupta & Co. v. Delhi Stock Exchange Association (1979) 3 SCR 373 and in K.P.Varghese v. ITO, Ernakulam 1981 (4) SCC 173 were relied upon. It was also contended that the High Court should have made its decision prospective in operation as it would now be harsh to revert those promotees after so many years, particularly when they have gone higher by two steps. For support, the decisions in State Bank of Hyderabad v. Rangachary JT 1992 (4) 509 SC = (1994) Supp. (2) SCC 479 and in D.K.Sahni v. Managing Director, Manganese Ore India Ltd. (1992) 4 SCC 201 were relied upon.
4. The learned Solicitor General drew our attention to one more decision of this Court in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B.Karunakar JT 1993 (6) SC 1 = (1993) 4 SCC 727 and submitted that the courts can make law made by them prospective in operation to prevent unsettlement of the settle positions, to prevent administrative chaos and to meet the ends of justice.
5. Therefore, the question which we have to consider is whether the Rule was so construed and consistently applied as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners drew our attention to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State wherein it is stated that prior to the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Randhir Singh’s case (in the year 1990) “it was never contemplated or held as a matter of practice that all the APAR must be consistently outstanding or very good” and that for the purpose of selection for promotion on merit basis a person having 5 out of 7 outstanding or very good was considered fit. In an earlier case the State of Rajasthan had taken similar stand, as can be seen from the decision in the State of Rajasthan v. Rajendra Kumar Godika 1993 Suppl. (3) SCC 150, though that case related to promotion in Rajasthan Education Service.
6. The contesting respondents in their counter affidavit have denied that the rule was so understood or that it was consistently applied in that manner. It may be stated that the petitioners had not raised such a plea before the Tribunal and, therefore, the Tribunal had no occasion to record any finding on this point. It was not raised before the High Court also. What was urged before the High Court was that DPC is a high power committee and the recommendations made by it are after going through the records of service and, therefore, the Tribunal ought not to have interfered with its selection.
7. The learned counsel for the contesting respondents drew our attention to the copies of the judgments of the Tribunal and the Rajasthan High Court annexed with their affidavits. In the Judgment delivered by the Tribunal on 11.11.1983 it has been observed : “We have been consistently holding that the ACRs/APARS of the officers pertaining to 7 (seven years) including the year of selection should either be “Very Good” or “outstanding” if they have to be selected on the basis of merit as per the Notification dated 11.4.1979. After the passing of the said order the DPC again met and did not select those who did not possess the outstanding or very good record for a period of 7 years. This selection was again challenged before the Rajasthan High Court by Mahesh Prasad Mathur and Suresh Chander Tayal but the High Court dismissed the petitions while holding that the view taken by the Tribunal was correct. The judgment delivered by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.4204 of 1990 also indicates that in the year 1984 the DPC had selected only those officers whose confidential reports were outstanding or consistently very good for all the 7 years. In view of this material on record it is not correct to say that the DPCs had always understood the Rule as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
8. The Rule requires that the record of the officer should be outstanding or consistently very good and that would imply that it should be so for the entire period under consideration.
9. In our opinion, the Tribunal and the High Court have correctly construed the Explanation and no interference is called for. The amendment made on 30-11-1991, being subsequent to the orders of promotions which are challenged in these cases, obviously, cannot apply to these cases. Therefore, all these SLPs are dismissed.
