Service Law: Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1966 – H.P. Labour and Employment Department, Labour Officers, Class–II (Gazetted) Ministerial Services R & P Rules, 2006 – Conditions of service of public servant – Vacancies arose prior to the promulgation of the new rules – To be filled only as per the old rules or as per the amended rules – Five post of Labour Officer governed by the 1966 Rules, to be filled by promotion – On 20.07.2006, seven additional posts sanctioned for labour officers, and total posts increased from 5 to 12 – Subsequently, the 1966 Rules amended – Under the New Rules of 2006, recruitment to the post of Labour Officer is to be made by promotion as well as direct recruitment in the ratio of 75 per cent and 25 per cent respectively – Out of the total number of 12 posts, the promotional posts increased from 5 to 9 (being 75 per cent) and direct recruitment posts came to
3 (being 25 per cent) – Respondent no. 1 to 3-Labour Inspector challenged the filling up of 25 percent of the posts by direct recruitment on the ground that the vacancies arose before the promulgation of the New Rules and thus, all the vacancies must be filled only by promotion – On direction by the tribunal, the State govt. considered the grievance and rejected the same – Challenged again before the tribunal – During the pendency, State government called up for applications for filling up the 3 posts of Labour Officers under the quota of direct recruitment – Respondent no. 4 to 6 appointed to the post – Appointments challenged by the respondent no.1 to 3 – Division Bench allowed the petition relying on Rangaiah’s case – On appeal, held : Rangaiah’s case must be seen in the context of its own facts, coupled with the declarations therein that there is no rule of universal application to the effect that vacancies must necessarily be filled on the basis of rules which existed on the date which they arose – Statement in Rangaiah that the “vacancies which occurred prior to the amended rules would be governed by the old rules and not by the amended rules”, does not reflect the correct proposition of law governing services under the Union and the States, thus, it is overruled – There is no right for an employee outside the rules governing the services – Services under the State are in the nature of a status, a hallmark of which is the need of the State to unilaterally alter the rules to subserve the public interest – 2006 Rules, governing the services of the respondents came into force immediately after they were notified – There is no provision in the said rules to enable the respondents to be considered as per the 1966 Rules – Furthermore, there is no other right that respondents no. 1 to 3 can claim for such consideration – Plea of the Government based on its policy decision to restructure the cadre by creating additional posts and also providing for direct recruitment by amending the rules is accepted – Thus, the judgment of High Court is set aside – Art. 309, 310, 311 – Constitution of India. Constitution of India : Art. 310 – Doctrine of pleasure – Purpose/Object – Stated.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 A review of the fifteen cases that have distinguished Rangaiah’s case would demonstrate that this Court has been consistently carving out exceptions to the broad proposition formulated in Rangaiah. The findings in these judgments, that have a direct bearing on the proposition formulated by Rangaiah are that there is no rule of universal application that vacancies must be necessarily filled on the basis of the law which existed on the date when they arose, Rangaiah’s case must be understood in the context of the rules involved therein; that it is now a settled proposition of law that a candidate has a right to be considered in the light of the existed rules, which implies the “rule in force” as on the date consideration takes place; that the right to be considered for promotion occurs on the date of consideration of the eligible candidates; The Government is entitled to take a conscious policy decision not to fill up the vacancies arising prior to the amendment of the rules. The employee does not acquire any vested right to being considered for promotion in accordance with the repealed rules & ORS.
in view of the policy decision taken by the Government. There is no obligation for the Government to make appointments as per the old rules in the event of restructuring of the cadre is intended for efficient working of the unit. The only requirement is that the policy decisions of the Government must be fair and reasonable and must be justified on the touchstone of Article 14. The principle in Rangaiah need not be applied merely because posts were created, as it is not obligatory for the appointing authority to fill up the posts immediately. When there is no statutory duty cast upon the State to consider appointments to vacancies that existed prior to the amendment, the State cannot be directed to consider the cases. [Para 36][895-F-G; 896-A-D]
1.2 The said observations made in the fifteen decisions that have distinguished Rangaiah’s case demonstrate that the wide principle enunciated therein is substantially watered-down. Almost all the decisions that distinguished Rangaiah hold that there is no rule of universal application to the effect that vacancies must necessarily be filled on the basis of law that existed on the date when they arose. This only implies that decision in Rangaiah is confined to the facts of that case. [Para 37.1][896-E-F]
1.3 The consistent findings in these fifteen decisions that Rangaiah’s case must be seen in the context of its own facts, coupled with the declarations therein that there is no rule of universal application to the effect that vacancies must necessarily be filled on the basis of rules which existed on the date which they arose, compels the Court to conclude that the decision in Rangaiah is impliedly overruled. However, as there is no declaration of law to this effect, it continues to be cited as a precedent and this Court has been distinguishing it on some ground or the other. For clarity and certainty, it is, therefore, necessary to hold that the statement in Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao that, “the vacancies which occurred prior to the amended rules would be governed by the old rules and not by the amended rules”, does not reflect the correct proposition of law governing services under the Union and the States under part XIV of the Constitution, it is hereby overruled; and that the rights and obligations of persons serving the Union and the States are to be sourced from the rules governing the services. [Para 37.3][897-C-F]
Y. V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao (1983) 3 SCC 284 – Overruled.
1.4 On facts, the Court noticed that the High Court proceeded on the premise that the vacancies occurring before the amendment of the Rules on 25.11.2006 must be governed by the 1966 Rules. The decision of the High Court took within its sweep even the 7 new posts of Labour Officers that were sanctioned by an inter–departmental letter dated 20.07.2006, which included even the 3 posts allocated for direct recruitment. The direction of the High Court to encompass even the 3 posts allocated for direct recruitment was on the ground that the posts were sanctioned on 20.07.2006, which is prior to the amendment of the Rules on 25.11.2006. [Para 38.1][897-F-H]
1.5 There is no right for an employee outside the rules governing the services. That the services under the State are in the nature of a status, a hallmark of which is the need of the State to unilaterally alter the rules to subserve the public interest. The 2006 rules, governing the services of the Respondents came into force immediately after they were notified. There is no provision in the said rules to enable the Respondents to be considered as per the 1966 Rules. The matter must end here. There is no other right that Respondents no.1 to 3 can claim for such consideration.[Para 38.2][898-A-C]
Union of India v.Tulsiram Patel (1985) 3SCC 398 : [1985] 2 Suppl. SCR 131; Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India (1968) 1 SCR 185 – Followed.
1.6 The alternative plea of the Government based on its policy decision to restructure the cadre by creating additional posts and also providing for direct recruitment by amending the rules, as a justification for not filling up the vacancies that arose prior to the amendment is fully supported by the decisions of this Court. [Para 39.1][898-C-D]
Dr. K. Ramulu & Anr v. Dr. S Suryaprakash Rao (1997)
3 SCC 59 : [1997] 1 SCR 287; Rajasthan Public & ORS.
Service Commissionv. Chanan Ram (1998) 4 SCC 202 : [1998] 1 SCR 1099; G. Venkateshwara Rao v. Union of India (1999) 8 SCC 455; Shyama Charan Dash v. Stateof Orissa (2003) 4 SCC 218 : [2003] 2 SCR 899; Stateof Punjab v. Arun Kumar Aggarwal (2007) 10 SCC
402 : [2007] 6 SCR 8; Deepak Agarwal v. State of U.P (2011) 6 SCC 725 : [2011] 4 SCR 149; Stateof Tripura v. Nikhil Ranjan Chakraborty (2017) 3 SCC 646; State of Orissa v. Dhirendra Sundar Das (2019) 6 SCC 270 : [2019] 7 SCR 197; Union of India v. Krishna Kumar (2019) 4 SCC 319 : [2019] 1 SCR 982; Rajasthan State Sports Council v. Uma Dadhich (2019) 4 SCC 316 : [2019] 1 SCR 585 – relied on.
1.7 The material placed on record shows that the additional posts of Labour Officers are created on 20.07.2006 and immediately thereafter the 12 labour zones were created. This is followed by amendment to the Rules with effect from on 25.11.2006 restructuring the cadre. The facts fully justify the alternative submission made by the State and the Court has no hesitation in accepting the said submission. Thus, the judgment of the High Court dated 28.12.2009 is set aside. [Paras 39.2 and 40][898-DE] D. Raghuv. R. Basaveswarudu 2020 SCC Online 124; B. P. Singhal v. Union of India (2010) 6 SCC 331; Union of India v. Arun Kumar Roy (1986) 1 SCC 677; Narayana v. Purushotham (2008) 5 SCC 416 : [2008]
6 SCR 1055; Brij Lal Mohan v. Union of India (2012)
6 SCC 502 : [2012] 5 SCR 305; Syed Khalid Rizivi V Union of India 1993 Supp (3) SCC 575 : [1992] 3 Suppl. SCR 180; Hardev Singh v Union of India (2011) 10 SCC 121; P. Ganeshwar Rao v. State of A.P. (1988) Supp SCC 740 : [1988] Suppl. SCR 805; N. T. Devin Katti v. Karnataka Public Service Commission (1990) 3 SCC 157; A. A. Calton v. Director of Education and Anr (1983) 3 SCC 33; P. Mahendran and Ors v. State of Karnataka (1990) 1 SCC 411 : [1989] 2 Suppl. SCR 385; State of Rajasthan v. R. Dayal (1997) 10 SCC 419 : [1997] 2 SCR 108; B. L. Gupta v. M.C.D (1998) 9 SCC 223; Arjun Singh Rathore v. B.N. Chaturvedi (2007) 11 SCC 605 : [2007]
11 SCR 320; Stateof Bihar v. Mithilesh Kumar (2010)
13 SCC 467 : [2010] 10 SCR 161; Kulwant Singh v. Daya Ram (2015) 3 SCC 177 : [2014] 11 SCR 1053; Richa Mishra v. Stateof Chhattisgarh (2016) 4 SCC 179 : [2016] 1 SCR 316; Union of India v. S.S. Uppal (1996)2 SCC 168 : [1996] 1 SCR 230; Shankarshan Dash v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 47 : [1991] 2 SCR 567; State Bank of India v. Kashinath Kher (1996)
8 SCC 762; Delhi Judicial Services Assn. v. Delhi High Court (2001) 5 SCC 145 : [2001] (3) SCR 314; M.I. Kunjukunju v. Stateof Kerala (2015)11 SCC 440; D. Raghuv. R. Basaveswarudu (2020) 18 SCC 1 – referred to.
‘Law Relating to Public Services’, Samaraditya Pal, 3rd Edition, Lexis Nexis, 2011 Para 7.1 – 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.