Rajasthan State Sports Council Service Rules, 2006 – r.9(4) – Respondent no. 1 was appointed under the Rajasthan State Sports Council as Coach Grade-III in 1986 and was thereafter promoted as Coach Grade-II in 1990 and Coach Grade-I in 1997 – Nine persons were promoted to the post of Sports Officer from the post of Coach Grade-I – Respondent No.1 challenged the decision of the appellant to promote respondent No. 2 for vacancies falling in the year 2003-2004 – Dismissed by Single Judge of High Court – Division Bench reversed the judgment holding that the criteria of seniority-cum-merit and merit for the purpose of promotion to the post of Sports Officer was introduced by the 2006 Rules and therefore, the criteria prevalent in 2006 could not have been made applicable to prior vacancies – On appeal, held: Respondent had no vested right to promotion but only a right to be considered in accordance with the rules as they existed on the date when the case for promotion was taken up – Further, r.9(4) of the 2006 Rules, relied on by the appellant, does not indicate that the vacancies must be filled on the basis of Rules as they prevail in the year in which they have occurred – Direction issued by the High Court is unsustainable.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
Held: 1.1 The respondent had no vested right to promotion but only a right to be considered in accordance with the rules as they existed on the date when the case for promotion was taken up. [Para 7][587-G]
1.2 Rule 9(4) of the Rajasthan State Sports Council Service Rules, 2006 on which reliance has been placed on behalf of the appellant does not indicate that the vacancies must be filled in on the basis of Rules as they prevail in the year in which they have occurred. The direction which was issued by the High Court is unsustainable. It is however, clarifed that in the event that respondent No. 1 has been promoted in the meantime in regular course, this order will not affect the merits of that promotion. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. [Paras 912][588-C-E]
H.S. Grewal v. Union of India (1997) 11 SCC 758; Deepak Agarwal v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2011) 6 SCC
725 : [2011] 4 SCR 149; State of Tripura v. Nikhil Ranjan Chakraborty (2017) 3 SCC 646; Union of India & Ors.v. Krishna Kumar & Ors. SLP(C) No. 26541 of 2014 decided on 14 January 2019; Y.V. Rangaiah v. Sreenivasa Rao (1983) 3 SCC 284 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.