Service Law:Recruitment Rules – Post of Principal, Grade ‘A’ (Senior Scale) and Joint Chief Inspector of Factories – Amendment to the Rules by a Notification, equating the post of Principal, Grade ‘A’ (Senior Scale) with the post of JCIF – Challenge to – Amended Recruitment Rules quashed and set aside by the tribunal as also High Court – On appeal held: Recruitment Rules were amended and the two posts came to be equated after the concurrence of the UPSC and after the draft rules were approved by the UPSC – When a conscious decision was taken by the UPSC and the Government after considering the pros and cons of the matter and considering the relevant factors, being a policy decision, the tribunal was not justified in quashing and setting aside the statutory rules – Thus, the High Court erred in upholding the order of the tribunal – Even otherwise, the duties to be performed by JCIF and Principal, Grade ‘A’ (Senior Scale) can be said to be identical and/or similar in nature.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 It appears that the High Court dismissed the writ petition, confirming the judgment and order passed by the tribunal quashing and setting aside the amended rules equating the post of Principal, Grade ‘A’ (Senior Scale) with the post of JCIF mainly on the ground that the nature of duties of both the posts, responsibilities and powers exercised by the officers holding the posts are not similar and/or identical. Relying upon the said two decisions of this Court-P.K. Roy and Roop Lal case, the High Court dismissed the writ petitions preferred by the appellants-Union of India and confirmed the judgment and order passed by the tribunal quashing and setting the amended rules vide notification-G.O. No. 6 of 2015 equating the post of Principal, Grade ‘A’ (Senior Scale) with that of the post of JCIF. However, neither the tribunal nor the High Court has considered the relevant factors which were considered while amending the rules and equating the two posts. The High Court also did not consider the fact that the UPSC gave its concurrence to the amended rules and only thereafter the rules were amended and the posts were equated. [Para 6.3] [244-C-E]
1.2 From the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the UPSC before the tribunal in O.A. No. 814 of 2005, it appears that the rules were amended after the concurrence of the UPSC and after the draft rules were approved by the UPSC. From the affidavitin-reply filed by the UPSC, it appears that the UPSC gave its concurrence after due deliberation with the Government from time to time. When a conscious decision was taken by the UPSC and the Government while amending rules and equating the two posts after considering the pros and cons of the matter and considering the relevant factors being a policy decision, the tribunal was not justified in quashing and setting aside the statutory rules. Therefore, the High Court committed a grave error in dismissing the writ petition and confirming the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal quashing and setting aside the amended rules by notification-G.O. No. 6 of 2015 equating the post of Principal, Grade ‘A’ (Senior Scale) with that of the post of JCIF. Even otherwise, on considering the nature and duties of JCIF and Principal, Grade ‘A’ (Senior Scale), the duties to be performed by JCIF and Principal, Grade ‘A’ (Senior Scale) can be said to be identical and/or similar in nature. [Para 6.4-6.6] [244-E-F; 248-E-G; 249-B]
1.3 The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court in Writ Petition arising out of the judgment and order passed by the tribunal quashing and setting aside the recruitment rules issued vide notification-G.O. No. 6 of 2015 equating the post of Principal, Grade ‘A’ (Senior Scale) with that of JCIF, cannot be concurred with and is quashed and set aside. [Para 7, 7.1] [249-D-E]
1.4 The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court in Writ Petition arising out of the judgment and order passed by the tribunal by which the tribunal set aside the order of transfer is concerned, the same stands disposed of. However, the liberty is reserved in favour of respondent No. 1-original applicant to challenge the order treating the period between 15.03.2005 till he attained the age of superannuation as dies-non, before an appropriate court/forum and as and when such proceedings are initiated, the same may be considered in accordance with law and on merits. [Para 7.2] [249-F-G] Union of India v. P. K. Roy [1968] 2 SCR 186; Sub-Inspector Roop Lal v. Lt. Governor (2000) 1 SCC
644 : [1999] 5 Suppl. SCR 310 – distinguished. P.U. Joshi v. Accountant General, Ahmedabad
(2003) 2 SCC 632 : [2002] 5 Suppl. SCR 573
– 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.