Holding

The tribunal transgressed its jurisdiction by granting promotion contrary to the mandatory provisions of Rule 7(2)(b) of the Central Ground Water Board Recruitment Rules, 1995, rendering its order void and non‑binding.

Summary

The respondents, junior scientists, sought promotion to Scientist‑Grade C despite not having the five years of service in Grade B required by Rule 7(2)(b) of the Central Ground Water Board (Scientific Group ‘A’ Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1995. They argued that deputationists with eight years of service were promoted under the same rule, claiming discrimination. The Central Administrative Tribunal granted the promotion without striking down the rule, and the High Court upheld that order. The Supreme Court examined whether a tribunal could ignore the mandatory provisions of the recruitment rules without challenging them, and whether such a decision could set a precedent. It held that the tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by granting relief contrary to the rule, that no mandamus can be issued against the rule, and that decisions contrary to law do not form binding precedent. Consequently, the Tribunal’s order and the High Court’s affirmation were set aside and the appeals were allowed.

Issues considered

Can the mandate of a service recruitment rule (Rule 7(2)(b)) be ignored and relief granted without striking down the rule?
Did the tribunal have jurisdiction to order promotion contrary to the rule’s mandatory service requirement?
Do decisions that contravene statutory rules constitute binding precedent?
Whether departmental and deputationist candidates constitute a single class for purposes of equality under the rule

Subjects

service lawpromotionrecruitment rulesjurisdictionprecedentequalitydepartmental candidatesdeputationistsadministrative tribunalmandamus

Judgment

}-

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. A
v.
S.K. SAIGAL AND ORS.

NOVEMBER 15, 2006

[H.K. SEMAAND P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN,JJ.] B

Service Law - Promotion - Rules governing service conditions -
Employee claiming promotion dehors mandate of Rules, without challenging
the Rules - Grant of, by tribunal without striking the Rules - Correctness of C
- Held· Tribunal transgressed its jurisdiction in granting relief dehors the
mandate of the Rules - Such orders will not bind this Court - Jl/egal decisions
cannot be allowed to be perpetuated - Thus, order of tribunal set aside -
Central Ground Water Board (Scientific Group 'A' Posts) Recruitment Rules,
1995.
D
Precedent - Binding precedent, requirement for - Held: Decision becomes
a precedent when it decides the law in accordance with Act and the Rules
- Decision contrary to law and Rules does not form a precedent.

In accordance with Rule 7(2)(b) read with column 12 of Central Ground
Water Board (Scientific Group 'A' Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1995, E
deputationists for promotion to the post of Scientists Grade 'C' in the scale
of Rs. 3000-4500 required 8 years experience in the scale of Rs. 2000-3500
as Jr. Hydrologists on a regular basis whereas departmental candidates
working in the scale of Rs. 2200-4000 required 5 years regular se!vice in
Grade 'B'. Respondents working as Junior Hydro-Geologist, Junior
Geophysicist Chemists and Hydro-Meteorologists did not complete 5 years of F
service in Grade 'B' in the scale of Rs. 2200-4000 but had already completed
'
8 years of service in the scale of Rs. 2000-3500. They claimed promotion to
Grade 'C' posts in the scale of Rs. 3000-4500, as in the case of deputationists.
Tribunal allowed the petition, albeit without striking down the Rules. High
Court upheld the order. G
The question which arose for consideration in these appeals was whether
the mandate ofthe Rules governing service conditions could be ignored without
1165
H
-(
1166 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 8 S.C.R.

A challenging the Rules and without striking them down.
Allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1.1. There was no challenge made to the Central Ground Water
Board (Scientific Group 'A' Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1995 as
B discriminatory or ultra-vires, much less Rule 7(2)(b) of the Rules.
Respondents clearly admitted by themselves that they had not worked for 5
years as Scientists 'B', which is the mandate of the Rules and~ therefore, the
tribunal transgressed its jurisdiction granting the relief to the respondents
dehors the mandate of the Rules. It is settled principle that no mandamus can
be issued which would be contrary to the Act and the Rules. [1170-B-FJ
c
State o/U.P. v. Harish Chandra, (1996) 9 SCC 309 and Union ofIndia
v. Association/or Democratic Reforms and Anr., (2002] 5 SCC 294, relied on.

1.2. In the absence of challenge to the vires of the Rules, the submission
that the deputation~ts and the departmental candidates have formed one class
D of the officers and, as such it would be impermissible to create any class within
the class under the Rules, cannot be accepted. (1170-G-H)
~
S.G. Jaisinghaniv. Union ofIndia and Ors., (1967) 2 SCR 703, referred
to.
E 1.3. Respondents relying on the decisions of High Court in which dmilar
questions had been raised and the relief was granted and the orders were
implemented, submitted that ~he impugned order passed by the High Court '
may not be disturbed, cannot be a:cepted. Such orders, if any, passed dehors
the rules will not bind this Court, notwithstanding the orders being
F implemented. Illegal decisions cannot be aUowed to be perpetuated. A decision
which is contrary to law and rules does not form a precedent. A decision
becomes a precedent when it decides the law in accordance wit~ the Act and
the Rules. Also the orders on which reliance was placed are under challenge
in appeals before this Court and are pending. (1171-A-DI

G CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 2600-2601 of
2005.

From the Judgments and Orders dated 22-8-2003 and 27-2-2004 of the
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No. 13192/200r~
and R.A. No.13/2004 in C.W.P. No.13192/2003 respectively.
H

.(
U.0.1. v. S.K. SAIGAL [H.K. SEMA, J.] 1167
A.S. Rawat, A.A.G., T.S. Doabia, S.Wasim A.Qadri, Ms. Sunita Shanna, A
D.S. Mithra, Manoj Swarup, S.K. Nandy, Ankur Mittal, Javed M. Rao, Shahid
Ali Rao, R. Santhan Krishnan, Ms. K. Radha Rani, Praveen K. Pandey, P.Vijay
Kumar, D. Mahesh Babu, J.K. Bhatia, Prakash Shrivastava, K.S. Rana and Dr.
•• Kailash Chand for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by : B
H.K.SEMA, J. The challenge in these appeals is to the orders dated
22.8.2003 and 27.2.2004 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court
affirming the order dated 30.10.2002 passed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal (CAT) allowing the petition of the respondents.
c
Briefly stated, the facts are as follows:

The respondents were working as Junior Hydro-Geologist, Junior
Geophysicist Chemists and Hydro-Meteorologists (Scientists Grade 'B'). Their
cases for consideration for promotion to the posts of Scientists Grade 'C' D
were declined on the ground that the departmental candidate should have put
in at least 5 years as Scientists Grade 'B' in the scale of Rs. 2200-4000 in
accordance with Rule 7(2)(b) read with column 12 of Central Ground Water
Board (Scientific Group 'A' Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1995 (hereinafter 'the
Rules'). We will deal with the Rules later at an appropriate time.
E
The grievance raised before the Tribunal was that the deputationists
with 8 years of experience in the scale of Rs. 2000-3500 were allowed to be
promoted as Scientists Grade 'C' in the scale of Rs. 3000-4500 whereas in the
case of the departmental candidates working in the scale of Rs. 2200-4000 it
was made mandatory for putting in regular 5 years service in Grade 'B' for
promotion to Grade 'C' and it is, therefore, discriminatory. It was also claimed F
that although the respondents have not completed 5 years of service in GraJe
'B' in the scale of Rs. 2200-4000, they have already completed 8 years of
service in the scale of Rs. 2000-3500 and, therefore, they are entitled to be
promoted to Grade 'C' posts in the scale of Rs. 3000-4500, as in the case of
deputationists.
G
The Tribunal was of the view that the eligibility condition that promotion
to the post of Scientist Grade 'C' for departmental candidates can be made
only after completion of 5 years regular service in the scale of Rs. 2200-4000,
whereas for candidates on deputation, the condition of 8 years service in the
scale of Rs. 2000-3500 for promotion to Grade 'C' posts in the scale of Rs.. H
1168 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.

A 3000-4500 is discriminatory between the departmental candidates and
deputationis_ts. According to the Tribunal, therefore, two sets of candidates
having the same qualifications seeking promotion to the same Grade cannot
be required to fulfil different eligibility criteria in terms of length of service in
a particular grade merely. on the ground that one set of candidates are ·'
B departmental candidates and the other set of candidates are deputationists.
The '.fribunal was further of the opinion that the rules that apply to the
deputationists should also apply to the departmental candidates, if otherwise,
the qualifications are the same. On the basis of the above view, the Tribunal
allowed the petition and directed the respondents (appellants herein) to
consider the promotion of the applicants to the rank of Scientists Grade 'C'
C from the date they completed 8 years of service in the pre-revised scale of
Rs. 2000-3500, albeit without striking down the Rules.

The core question posed for detennination is as to whether the particular
Rules governing service conditions could be brushed aside without challenging
the Rules and the man~ate of the Rules could be ignored in the absence of
D a challenge and without striking them down?

Rule 7(2)(b) of the Rules, which is relevant for the present purposes
reads as under:

"Rule 7(2)(b): The departmental officers who have rendered in the
E respective grade the requisite regular service specified in column (12)
of the Schedule may be recommended by the Board of Assessment
comprising the officers specified in column (13) of the Schedule for
promotion to the next higher grade. While evaluating 1he suitability
of the officers for promotion, the Assessment Board shall take into
consideration their qualifications, performance, merit and seniority.
F The selection shall be on the basis of confidential reports and
interview. However, the Assessment Board, may at their discretion,
consider in absentia the candidature of such officer who is unable to
present himself for the interview. The Assessment Board shall draw
up a list of officers who are assessed as fit for promotion to the next
G higher grade. In so far as persons undergoing training in India or
abroad (under F.R. 51) are concerned, they shall be promoted to the
next higher grade with effect from the date they would have been so
promoted had they not proceeded on training subject to the following
conditions being fulfilled:-

H (i) The period of such training is treated as duty under F.R.

~··
U.O.l. v. S.K. SAIGAL [H.K. SEMA. J.] 1169

9(6)(b). A
(ii) They have been approved for promotion to the next higher
grade.
(iii) All their seniors, except those regarded as unfit for promotion
to the particular grade, available have been promoted to that
grade." B
Further Column 12 reads:

"For Hydrology Discipline: Promotion: Junior Hydrologist with 8 years'
service in the grade rendered after appointment therein on a regular
basis. C
For other disciplines:

Promotion: Scier.tist 'B' with 5 years regular service in the grade.

Transfer on deputation: (including short-term contract): Officers under
the Central/State Governments Universities/ Recognised Research D
Institutions Public Sector Undertakings/ Statutory or Autonomous
Organisations:-

(a) (i) holding analogous posts on a regular basis, or

(ii) with 5 years' regular service in post in the scale of Rs. 2200-4000 E
or equivalent; or

(iii) with 8 years' regular service in posts in the scale of Rs. 2000-3500
or equivalent; and

(b) Possessing the educational qualification and experience prescribed F
for direct recruits under column (8).

(The departmental officers in the feeder grade who are in the direct
line of promotion will not be eligible for considerat!on for appointment
on deputation. Similarly, deputationists shall not be eligible for
consideration for appointment by promotion).
G
(Period of deputation including period of deputation in another ex-
cadre post held immediately preceding this appointment in the same
or some other organization/ department of the Central Government
shall not exceed 3 years).

H
1170 SUPREME COURT REPORTS {2006) SUPP. 8 S.C.R.

A The maximum age-limit for appointment by transfer on deputation
shall not be exceeding 56 years as on the closing date of receipt of
applications."

The mandate of the Rule, as noticed above, clearly ·shows that the
deputationists for promotion to the post of Grade 'C' required 8 years
B experience as Jr. Hydrologists on a regular basis whereas departmental
candidates must have completed 5 years regular service in Grade 'B' in the
scale of Rs. 2200-4000.

We have been taken through the entire petition filed by the respondents
herein before the Tribunal. There is not even a whisper of challenging the
C Rules as discriminatory or ultra-vires, much less Rule 7(2)(b) of the Rules.

Similarly, in paragraph 4, clause (v), the petitioners (respondents herein)
stated as under:

"(v.) That petitioners as Scientists-B have not completed 5 years
D regular service. Petitioners have not worked for 5 years on analogous
posts on regular basis. Petitioners have also not served 5 years on
regular basis in the post of scale of Rs. 2200-4000. However, petitioners
have definitely worked for over 8 years on regular basis in the post
in the scale of Rs. 2000-4000 can definitely be treated as equivalent
E to regular service in the post in the scale of 2000-3500."

It was, therefore, clearly an admitted case of the respondents by
themselves that they had not worked for 5 years as Scientists 'B', which is
the mandate of the Rules and, therefore, the Tribunal transgressed its
· jurisdiction granting the· relief to the respondents dehors 'the mandate of the
F Rules. It is now settled principle of law that no mandamus can be issued
which would be contrary to the Act and the Rules. See State of U.P. v. Harish
Chandra, [1996] 9 SCC 309; Union·df India v. Association for Democratic
Reforms and Anr., [2002] 5 SCC 294.

Mr. Manoj Swarup, learned counsel appearing for the respondents
G contended that the deputationists and the departmental candidates have
fom1ed 0ne class Of the officers and, tl>erefore, it would be impermissible to
create any class within the class under the Rules. In this connection he
referred to the decision of this Court in S.G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India
and Ors., [1967] 2 SCR 703. This contention would be of no help to the
H respondents 111 the absence of challenge to the vires of the Rules.

'
.. U.0.1. v. S.K. SAIGAL [H.K. SEMA, J.]

Learned counsel for the respondents also referred to the various
1171
A
decisions of the Rajasthari High Court in which similar questions had been
raised and the relief was granted by,he High Court and the High Court orders
were implemented. According to him, taking note of the line of the decisions
of the Rajasthan High Court, the order impugned passed by the High Court
in the present case may not be disturbed. We are not at all impressed by such
submissions. Such orders, if any, passed dehors the rules will not bind us, B
notwithstanding the orders being implemented. Those orders are also under
challenge in appeals that are transferred to this Court in T.P (C) Nos. 197 to
220 and pending. Moreover, illegal decisions cannot be allowed to be
perpetuated. A decision which is contrary to law and rules does not fonn a
precedent. A decision becomes a precedent when it decides the law· in C
accordance with the Act and the Rules.

In the result, the order dated 30. l 0.2002 passed by the Tribunal in OA
422/2002 and the order of the Division Bench of the High Court dated 22.8.2003
in passed in CWP No. 13192 of 2003 are hereby set aside. The OA No. 422/
2002, filed by the respondents, stands dismissed. The appeals are allowed. D
No costs.

N.J. Appeals allowed.

,·