I.C.A.R. AND ANR.versusT.K. SURYANARAYAN AND ORS.

A                              I.C.A.R. AND ANR.
                                         v.
                      T.K. SURYANARAYAN AND ORS.

                                 AUGUST 5, 1997

B                   [G.N. RAY AND G.B. PATTAN~K, JJ.]

          Technical Service Rules of Indian Council of Agricultural Research.

          Rules 5 and '7--Promotion on the basis of educational qualifica-
C tion--Fitment in Grade T-1-3-Claim for accelerated promotion to Grade
  T-2-3-Rules not providing such a promoti01~Held, even if in some cases,
  e1r01ieous promotions had been given contrary to the Rules, an employee
  cannot base his claim for promotion contrary to the statutory service 1Ules in
  law court~espondent were not entitled to get initial fitment in grade T-1-3,
  a'nd, as such, are not entitled to accelerated promotion on basis of education-
D al qualification consequent upon the initial fitment in grade T-1-3 to Category
    [.


        Director, Central Rice Researcfi Institution, Cuttack and Anr. v. Khetra
    Mohan Das, (1994) Supp. 3 SCC 595, relied on.

E         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5502 and
    5504 of 1997.

          Form the Judgment and Order dated 25.11.93 and 31.5.94 of the
    Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in OA. No. 992 of 1991 and
    270 of 1991.
F
         A.K. Sikri, V.K. Rao, Piyush Sharma and Ms. Madhu Sikri for the
    Appellants.

           Sanjeev Malhotra and U.U. Lalit for the Respondents.

G          The following Order of the Court was delivered :

           Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

           Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 16873 of 1995, the order passed
     by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench on 25th Novem·
H    ber, 1993 in O.A. No. 992/91 is under challenge. The Tribunal by the
                                         322
                   LC.AR. v. T.J.{. SURYANARAYAN                     323

impugned judgment has allowed the application filed by the respondents A
Nos. 1 to 3 in view of the fact the Indian Council of Agricultural Research
having allowed large number of employees to get promotion in different
units ·on the b.asis of educational qualification and the said respondents
having also been given promotion on the basis of higher educational
qualification should not suffer any prejudice by denyirig such promotions B
on the ground that the Technical Service Rules of Indian Council of
Agriculture Research enforced with effect from 1.10.1975 do not permit
such promotion. The Tribunal has also proceeded on the footing that if the
said respondents had reached the grade of T-1-3 category I even on
promotion, the said respondents, having requisite qualification for holding
the posts in Grade T-2-3 of category 2, was entitled to accelerated promo- C
tion to the said T-2-3 grade.

      It may be indicated that in a similar case, the indian Council of_
Agricultural Research and Director, Central Tobacco Research Institute,
Rajamundry challenged the ·decision of the Central Administrative D
Tribunal, Cuttack Bench against the judgment of the said Tribunal in
favour of one Shri Khetra Mohan Das.

      A three Judge's Bench of this Court has considered the import of
Rule 5-1 and 7-2 of the said Service Rules coming into force on 1st October
1975. It has been clearly indicated in the said decision of this Court E
reported in (1994) 6 J.T. 482 SC = (1994] Suppl 3 SCC 595 that the
question of fitment in grade T-1-3 in category No. 1 and consequential
accelerated promotion to grade T- 2-3 in category No. 2 on the basis of
educational qualification of such employee on the date of enforcement of
the said service Rules in one time exercise. If an employee does not get F
fitment on the date of enforcement of the said Rules in the grade T-1-3 of
category I, the question of accelerated promotion to Grade T-2-3 of
category-2 on the basis of educational qualification can not arise. It has
been clearly indicated that despite higher educational qualification re-
quired for holding the post in Grade T-2-3, if the initial fitment has not G
been made in Grade T-1-3 such employee is not entitled to claim ac-
celerated promotion to Grade T-2-3 of category 2. Such employee can
come to the higher. grade only on the basis of promotion as envisaged in
Rule 7. It may however be indicated at this stage that later on there has
been some relaxation in the matter of requisite educational qualification
for holding the post in grade T-2-3. It has been held in the case of Khetra H
    324                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A Mohan Das that promotion cannot be given contrary to the said Service
    Rules. Preolsely for the said reason, the decision of the Central Ad-
    ministrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench in Khetra Mohan's case was set aside.

         Mr. De, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents in
  SLP(C) No. 16873 of 1995 has, however, submitted that the decision
B rendered in Khetra Mohan's case should not be taken into consideration
  for deciding the correctness of the impugned judgment of the Tribunal. In
  the case of Khetra Mohan the claim of promotion of a direct recruit was
  involved and the claim of promotion of in-service employees in view of long
  experience over the years did not come up for consideration in the said
C case. Mr. De, has also submitted that the respondents in this case were in
  the pay scale of Rs. 425-700 before lst January, 1977. Therefore their cases
  were required to be considered differently. Mr. De has also submitted that
  in any event, hostile discrimination has been made to these respondents.
  targe number of employees similarly circumstanced have got promotion
D but the institute for inexplicable reasons ch.ose not to challenge such order
  for promotions even though such promotions directed to be given were
  contrary to the said Service Rules. Such discriminatory stand has resulted
  in an unfortunate situation where number of employees who are similarly
   circumstanced are holding superior posts. But in the case of these respon-
   dents, the institute appears be keen in enforcing the Service Rules by
E ignorir,g the fact that the respondents had qualification to hold superior
   grades when the said Service Rules were introduced. Mr. De has lastly
   contended that out of the three respondents, two have already attained the
   age of superannuation and only one of the respondents is still in service
   but if the impugned judgment of the tribunal is interfered with, the said
F respondent will suffer serious prejudice. Mr. De has submitted that in the
   special facts of this case, this Court should not be inclined to interfere in
   exercise of its discretionery power under Article 136 of the Constitution.

        Mr. lalit, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent in
  SLP(C) No. 19103 of 1995 has also supported Mr. De by contending that
G the management of Indian Council of Agricultural Research and its con-
  stituent uni.ts intend to take different stands resulting in hostile discrimina-
  tion to a large number of employees. He has also drawn our attention to
  two letters issued by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research dated
  27th January, 1979 and 28th January, 1980. Mr. Lalit has submitted that
H the said two letters indicate that the Indian Council of Agricultural Re-
                   I.C.AR.v. T.K.SURYANARAYAN                          325

search was alive to the unfortunate situation created by the introduction of A
the said Service Rules and unmerited hardship meted out to a number of
employees. It therefore, directed the concerned units not to implement the
said Rules until various representations received by the institute were
considered. Mr. lalit has submitted that the respondents in these SLPs had
requisite qualification to get promotion because of the relaxation of the B
educational qualification and all of them had long experience in service.
He has, therefore submitted that if promotion claimed by them since
allowed by the Central Administrative Tribunal is interfered with at this
stage such decision is bound to bring complete frustration to these respon-
dents. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court should refrain
from interfering with the impugned decisions of the Tribunal for ends of C
justice.

       We are, however, unable to accept the submission made by the
learned counsel appearing in both these SLPs. Eyen if in some cases,
erroneous promotions had been given contrary to the said Service Rules D
 and consequently such employees have been allowed to enjoy the fruits of
improper promotion, an employee can not base his claim for promotion
contrary to the statutory Service Rules in law courts. Incorrect promotion
either given erroneously by the department by misreading the said Service
Rules or such promotion given pursuant to judicial orders contrary to
Service Rules cannot be a ground to claim erroneous promotion by per- E
petrating infringement of statutory Service Rules. In a court of law,
employees cannot be permitted to contend that the Service Rules made
effective on 1st October, 1975 should not be adhered to because in some
cases erroneous promotions had been given. The statutory Service Rules
must be applied strictly in terms of the interpretation of Rules as indicated F
in the decision of Three Judges Bench of this Court in Khetra Mohan's
case. When the said Service Rules were introduced w.e.f. 1st October, 1975,
one time exercise was required to be made to decide the fitment of the
employees in different grades. Except in case of fitment in grade T -1-3 of
Category 1 and consequential accelerated promotion to grade T-2-3 of
Category 2, on the basis of qualification in no other case· accelerated G
promotion on the basis of educational qualification is permissible. If relaxa-
tion of educational qualification is made effective on the date of enforce-
ment of the said service Rules it will be a case of review of initial fitment.
In all other cases, promotion is to be given in accordanc,e with the said ·
Service Rules and not otherwise. The respondents in these appeals were H
    326                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A not entitled to get Initial fitment in grade T-1-3. As a matter of fact, they
    got initial fitment in grade lower than Grade T-1-3 of Category 1. There-
    fore, they are not entitled to accelerated promotion on the basis of educa-
    tional qualification consequent upon the initial fitment in Grade T-1-3 of
    Category I. The impugned decisions of the Tribunal, therefore, cannot be
B   sustained.

           It may, however, be indicated that the question of unmerited
    hardship if any, and need for amendment of Rules to remove such
    hardship, are matters for consideration of the Rule making authority. It is
    reasonably expected that the concerned authorit~ will be sensitive to un-
C   merited hardship to large number of its employees, if occasioned by
    introduction of Service Rules so that appropriate remedial measures may
    be taken. Since the impugned orders of the Tribunal cannot be sustained
    iJl law, the impugned judgment in both the appeals are set aside.

    Special Leave Petition (c) No. 18567 Of 1995
D
            No one has appeared for the respondent in SLP(C) No. 18567 of
     1995. The respondent has informed the Registry of this court that he is not
     in a position to appear at the hearing of the matter. Since the impugned
     decision in this special leave petition cannot be sustained for reasons
     indicated in the other two matters, the impugned judgment in this S.L.P.
E    is also set aside. The appeal and the S.L.P. are accordingly disposed of
     without any order as to cost.

     R.P.                                    Appeals and Petitions disposed of.