Supreme Court of India
RAMINDER SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.
- Citation
- 2016 INSC 884
- Decided
- 19 September 2016
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- JASTI CHELAMESWAR
Holding
The State cannot cancel a promotion of an in‑service employee who has fulfilled the existing service rule requirements, and the promotion must be restored.
Summary
Raminder Singh, an in‑service Silt Observer/Analyst in the Punjab Public Works Department (Irrigation Branch), applied for promotion to Research Assistant Grade B after the State merged the Grade‑C post into Grade‑B but failed to amend the service rules. He was promoted on 14‑12‑2001, worked in the higher post, but later the State cancelled his promotion on the ground that he lacked the requisite qualifications, despite his having met the criteria in Rule 10 of the 1956 Rules and receiving a competent authority’s recommendation. The appellant challenged the cancellation, arguing that the unamended rules remained applicable and that no adverse material was concealed. The Supreme Court held that, until the Rules are formally amended, employees who satisfy the existing provisions cannot be denied promotion benefits, and the State had no lawful basis to revoke the order. Consequently, the Court restored the appellant to the Research Assistant Grade B post and entitled him to the salary differential from the date of cancellation.
Issues considered
- Whether the State was justified in cancelling the promotion of an in‑service employee when the service rules had not been amended after the merger of posts.
- Whether the qualifications prescribed in the advertisement can override the existing service rules for promotion.
- Whether the appellant is entitled to salary of the promotional post from the date of cancellation.
Subjects
service lawpromotioncancellation of promotionservice rules amendmentin‑service candidatePunjab Public Works Departmentadministrative law
Judgment
[2016] 5 S.C.R. 310
A· RAMINDER SINGH
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 2127 of2009)
B SEPTEMBER 19, 2016
[J. CHELAMESWAR AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]
Service Law:
Promotion - Cancellation of - The State merged Grade-C post
c in Grade-B post of Research Assistant, however did not amend the
Service Class Rules and continued with un-amended Rules for filling
vacancies - Respondent No.2 invited applications for filling post
of Research Assistant Grade B - Appellant, an in-service candidate
submitted his application - Competent authorities recommended his
promotion - Appellant promoted - Complaints made against
D
promotion - Grade Promotion of appellant was cancelled and he
was reverted from the post of Research Assistant Grade B - Held:
The State was supposed to make appropriate amendments in Rules
after merging one post into another - So long as this exercise was
not done by the State, employees who had fulfilled the requirement
E prescribed in the existing Rules for consideration of their cases for
promotion, they could not be denied the benefits under the Rules -
There was no suppression of any material information by appellant
and his record was also not adverse - No justification by the State
for recalling the promotional order of appellant on basis of some
complaints, which had no legal foundation - Promotion of appellant
F
to be restored - Punjab Public WorkS Department (Irrigation
Branch), Research Assistants' State Service Class III Rules, 1956 -
r.10.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
G HELD: 1.1 The State was not justified in cancelling the
appellant's promotion order as also the High Court was not
justified in upholding the cancellation order. First, it is an admitted
case that the appellant being an in service candidate, his case for
promotion from the post of Silt Observer/Analyst to the next
promotional post of "Research Assistant Grade B" was required
H
310
RAMINDER SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. 3 II
to be considered as an in-service candidate as provided in Rule A
10 of Punjab Public Works Department (Irrigation Branch),
Research Assistants' State Service Class III Rules, 1956. Second,
it was again an admitted case that the appellant was working as a
Silt Observer/Analyst and in addition to the duties assigned to
this post, he was also performing the duties of Research Assistant
B
Grade B as per the directives of the office. Third, the appellant
had admittedly fulfilled the eligibility criteria and qualification
prescribed in Rule 10 (l)(b)(i) and (2) as also the qualifications
prescribed for appointment to the post in question for direct
recruits. Fourth, the competent authorities had also
recommended the case of the promotion of the appellant certifying c
that the appellant is fit for promotion. Fifth, the appellant worked
on the promotional post and performed the duties assigned to
the promotional post from 14.12.2001 till 10.12.2002. Sixth, since
the Government, despite merging the Grade C post in Grade-B
post, did not amend the Rules and on the other hand continued
D
with the on-amended Rules for filling the vacancies including
vacancies by promotion, hence, the case of the appellant had to
be considered in the light of the requirement of the Rules. It
was necessary for the State to have made appropriate amendments
in the Rules after merger of one post into another, but so long as
this exercise was not done by the State, the employees, who had E
otherwise fulfilled the requirement prescribed in the existing
Rules for consideration of their cases for promotion, they could
not be denied the benefits flowing from the Rules and lastly, in
the absence of any adverse entries or/and record of the appellant
and further in the absence of any allegation made against the
F
appellant for suppressing any material information, there is no
justification on the part of the State to have recalled the
promotional order. of the appellant on the basis of some
complaints said to have been made by someone after a long lapse
of time which also had no factual or/and legal foundation. [Paras
28 and 29] [317-B-G) G
1.2 The appellant is restored to the promotional post of
Research Assistant Grade B. If the appellant has discharged the
duties of Research Assistant Grade B after the cancellation of
his promotional order for any reason in addition to his duties
assigned during the period in question then he would be entitled H
312 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 5 S.C.R.
A to claim the salary of the promotional post from the date of
cancellation order after adjusting his salary, which he has received
as Silt Observer during such period. [Para 33) [318-D]
Ku/dip Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Am: CWP
No. 19906 of 2002 - referred to.
B CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2127
of2009.
From the Judgment and Order dated 31. I0.2008 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No. I066 of
2006.
c
Ms. NiharikaAhluwalia, Sudhir Walia, AbhishekAtrey, Advs., for
the Appellant.
Ms. Disha Singh, Shivendu Gaur, Jagjit Singh Chhabra,Advs., for
the Respondents.
D The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. I. This appeal is filed against
the final judgment and order dated 31.10.2008 passed by the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No. I066 of
2006 whereby the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the
E appellant herein against the office orde~ dated 13.01.2006 by which the
promotion of the appellant was cancelled and he was reverted from the
post of Research Assistant Grade B to Silt Observer.
2. Facts of the case need mention, in brief, infra to appreciate the
controversy involved in the appeal.
F 3. The appellant was recruited as Silt Observer in the year 1986
in Irrigation and Power Research Institute, Amritsar, which is a Branch
of Public Works Department, Government of Punjab. At the time of his
appointment, his qualification was matriculation with Science subjects
and B.A. with Economics and Political Science. While working as Silt
G Observer, the appellant was performing the duties of Research Assistant
Grade B, as per the directives of his superiors.
4. The State of Punjab promulgated the Punjab Public Works
Department (Irrigation Branch), Research Assistants' State Service Class
III Rules, 1956 (in short "the Rules"). The Rules, inter alia, provides
H three Grades in the cadre of "Research Assistant" in Public Works
RAMINDER SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. 313
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]
Department (Irrigation Branch), namely, Research Assistant Grade A, A
Research Assistant Grade B and Research Assistant Grade C. Rule 10
with which we are concerned here deals with the Method of Recruitment
and appointment to various Grades of the Service, which reads as under:
"10. Method of recruitment -
(1) Appointment to the various grades of the Service shall B
be made-
(a) in the case of Research Assistants, Grade A:-
(i) by promotion from amongst Research Assistants
Grade B; or c
(ii) by transfer of an official already in the service of
the Government of a State or of the Union; or
(iii) by direct appointment;
(b) in the case of Research Assistants, Grade B:-
D
(i) by promotion from amongst Research Assistants
Grade C; or
(ii) by transfer of an official already in service of the
Government of a State or of the Union; or
(iii) by direct appointment; E
(c) in the case of Research Assistants, Grade C:-
(i) by promotion from amongst Analysts or Silt
Analysts or other ranks already working in the
Institute or Laboratories under the control of F
Institute, provided the official so promoted is
reported to be fit for research work expected of
Research Assistants and has worked in the
Institute or Laboratories for at least 5 years and
has also passed the F.Sc. examination of a
recognized university; or G
(ii) by transfer of an official already in service of the
Government of a State or of the Union; or
(iii) by direct appointment.
(2) For promotion from Grade C to Grade Band from Grade H
314 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016) 5 S.C.R.
A B to Grade A, a Research Assistant must have crossed the
efficiency bar in the Grade from which he is promoted.
(3) Appointment to any post to be filled either by the
promotion of officials already in the Service or by the
transfer of officials already in the service of the Government
B of a State or of the Union shall be made purely by selection
and no official shall have any claim to such appointment as
of right.
Note : When any vacancy arises and the recruitment is to
take place through the Punjab Public Service Commission
c the method of recruitment shall always be decided in
consultation with them."
5. In the year 1967-68, the State of Punjab abolished the post of
Research Assistant Grade C and it was merged in Research Assistant
Grade B. Despite merger of the post, Rules were not amended.
D 6. On 21.06.200 I, respondent No.2 invited applications for filling
up the post of Research Assistant Grade B from amongst the cadre of
research staff working as Silt Analyst and other categories in the Irrigation
laboratories. The said invitation specifically mentions that the officials,
who are employed as Silt Analyst or Observer should be working in the
E Institute or laboratories of the Department of Irrigation for at least 5
years and has also passed F.Sc. examination or equivalent.
7. In response to the said invitation, the appellant submitted his
application without concealing any fact or qualification along with the
attested photocopies ofhis educational qualification certificates.
F 8. On consideration of his application and the experience, the
Research Officer, Chemistry Branch of the Irrigation and Power
Research Institute, Amritsar recommended the case of the appellant for
being promoted as Research Assistant Grade B. After consideration,
the appellant was promoted as Research Assistant Grade Bon 14.12.200 l
and accordingly his pay and other allowances were also fixed. Since
G
14.12.200 I, the appellant was continuing to work as Research Assistant
Grade B.
9. After the promotions, some complaints were received by the
Punjab Government regarding the promotion of the appellant as well as
other promotions made subsequently and the'Under Secretary, Irrigation
H
RAMINDER SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. 315
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]
Department, Government of Punjab asked for the detailed comments A
and records from respondent No.2 regarding promotions made by him
during the period 2001-2002.
I 0. On 24.05.2002, respondent No.2 submitted detailed comments
to the Under Secretary whereby the promotions of the appellant and
others were explained. B
11. On 10.10.2002, the Under Secretary, Irrigation Department,
Government of Punjab directed the appellant and seven other promotees •
to appear before the Special Secretary, Irrigation Department, on
16.10.2002 regarding the complaint about their promotion.
12. Accordingly, the appellant and other promotees appeared before c
the Special Secretary on 16.10.2002 and explained to him about their
eligibility under the Rules for promotion to the post of Research Assistant
Grade B.
13. After considering the matter, vide order dated I 0.12.2002, the
promotion of the appellant was cancelled on the ground that he did not D
fulfill the requisite qualification and experience and that he was not
promoted in accordance with Rules.
14. Challenging the order of cancellation of promotion, the appellant
along with one Sohan Lal, who was also promoted with him, filed C. W.P.
No. 19893 of 2002 before the High Court for quashing the order of E
cancellation of promotion.
15. The High Court by order dated 01.04.2004 disposed of the
petition directing the Department to examine the case of the appellant in
view of the decision of the High Court rendered in C.W.P. No. 19906 of
2002 (Kuldip Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr.). F
16. In compliance with the directions issued by the High Court,
the claim of the appellant was reconsidered and the same was rejected
on the ground that he did not fulfill the prescribed qualification for
promotion.
17. By order dated 13.01.2006, the promotion of the appellant G
was cancelled and was reverted to the post from which he was promoted.
18. Challenging the said cancellation order, the appellant filed writ
petition being C.W.P. No. 1066 of 2006 before the High Court. By
impugned judgment dated 31'.l 0.2008, the High Court dismissed the
H
316 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 5 S.C.R.
A petition filed by the appellant herein.
19. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant has filed this
appeal by way of special leave before this Court.
20. Heard Ms. Niharika Ahluwalia, learned counsel for the
appellant and Ms. Disha Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.
B
21. Learned Counsel for the appellant while assailing the legality
and correctness of the impugned order made three-fold submissions.
22. Iri the first place, learned counsel contended that the High
Court erred in dismissing the appellant's writ petition and thereby erred
c in upholding the order impugned in the writ petition by which the
appellant's promotion to the post of Research Assistant Grade B was,
cancelled and he was reverted to the post of Silt Observer.
23. In the second place, learned counsel contended that when
admittedly the appellant had possessed the requisite qualification as
provided in Rule 10 (I )(b)(i) and (2) for the next promotional post of
D
Research Assistant Grade B and further the competent authority had
duly recommended the appellant's case for promotion to the post of
Research Assistant Grade B pursuant to which the appellant was promoted
and worked on the promoted post from 14.12.2001to10.12.2002, there
was no justification on the part of the State to have cancelled the
E appellant's promotion order and revert him to his original post.
24. In the third place, learned counsel conterided~that when the
State merged the Grade C post in Grade B and after merger, did not
amend the Rules by providing any separate qualifications for the posts in
question nor did provide any other requirement by making any amendment
F in the existing rules, there was no reason much less justifiable reason for
the State to cancel the appellant's promotion.
25. In reply, learned counsel for the respondents supported the
reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court and prayed
for its upholding.
G 26. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal
of the record of the case, we find force in the submissions urged by the
learned counsel for the appellant.
27. The short question that arises in this appeal is whether the
State was justified in cancelling the promotion order of the appellant by
H
RAMINDER SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. 317
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]
which he was promoted to the post of Research Assistant Grade B from A
the post of Silt Analyst/Silt observer?
28. In our considered opinion, the State was not justified in
cancelling the appellant's promotion order as also the High Court was
not justified in upholding the cancellation order.
. B
29. This we say for more than one reason. First, it is an admitted
case that the appellant being an in service candidate, his case for promotion
from the post of Silt Observer/Analyst to the next promotional post of
"Research Assistant Grade B" was required to be considered as an in
service candidate as provided in Rule 10. Second, it was again an
admitted case that the appellant was working as a Silt Observer/Analyst c
and in addition to the duties assigned to this post, he was also performing
the duties of Research Assistant Grade B as per the directives of the
office. Third, the appellant had admittedly fulfilled the eligibility criteria
and qualification prescribed in Rule 10 (l)(b)(i) and (2) as also the
. qualifications prescribed for appointment to the post in question for direct
recruits. Fourth, the competent authorities had also recommended the D
case of the promotion of the appellant certifying that the appellant is fit
for promotion. Fifth, the appellant worked on the promotional post and
performed the duties assigned to the promotional post from 14.12.200 I
till I 0.12.2002. Sixth, since the Government, despite merging the Grade
C post in Grade-B post, did not amend the Rules and on the other hand E
continued with the uncamended Rules for filling the vacancies including
vacancies by promotion, hence, the case of the appellant had to be
considered in the light of the requirement of the Rules. In other words,
it was necessary for the State to have made appropriate amendments in
the Rules after merger of one post into another, but so long as this exercise
was not done by the State, the employees, who had otherwise fulfilled F
the requirement prescribed in the existing Rules for consideration of
their cases for promotion, they could not be denied the benefits flowing
from the Rules and lastly, in the absence of any adverse entries or/and
record of the appellant and further in the absence of any allegation made
against the appellant for suppressing any material information, we do G
not find any justification on the part of the State to have recalled the
promotional order of the appellant on the basis of some complaints said
to have been made by someone after a long lapse of time which also had
no factual or/and legal foundation.
30. Learned Counsel for the respondents, however, contended H
318 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 5 S.C.R.
A that the appellant did not possess the requisite qualifications that were
necessary for the promotional post as prescribed in the advertisement
and hence cancellation of the appellant's promotion was appropriate.
We do not find any force in this contention.
31. As held supra, the appellant had fulfilled the necessary criteria
B prescribed in Rule 10. It was, in our view, sufficient compliance for the
in service candidate. Anything prescribed in the advertisement, which
was de hors the Rules was bad in law.
32. In the light of foregoing discussion, we do not agree with the
view taken by the High Court and accordingly allow the appeal and set
c aside the impugned order of the High Court and, in consequence, allow
the writ petition filed by the appellant (writ petitioner) and set aside the
order dated 10.12.2002 (Annexure P-9) impugned in the writ petition:
33. As a consequence, the appellant is restored to the promotional
post of Research Assistant Grade B. If the appellant has discharged the
D duties of Research Assistant Grade B after the cancellation of his
promotional order for any reason in addition to his duties assigned during
the period in question then he would be entitled to claim the salary of the
promotional post from the date of cancellation order after adjusting his
salary, which he has received as Silt Observer during such period.
E AnkitGyan Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "service law"Sign in to search