Assam Rifles Warrant Officer (General Duty) Group ‘C’ Combatised Posts Recruitment Rules, 2012 – Promotion to the post of Naib Subedar after re-structuring of Assam Rifles in 2011 and creation of Recruitment Rules in 2012 – Eligibility of – In 2011, Union of India introduced an intermediate rank of Warrant officer by the abolition/upgradation of one post of Havildar – Thereafter, Recruitment Rules, 2012 were notified – In terms of the Recruitment Rules, 2012 the post of Warrant Officer was created which was required to be filled up by promotion amongst members of the Assam Rifles holding the rank of Havildar – Consequently, promotion orders were issued for Havildars to the newly created post of Warrant Officer – Writ proceedings were instituted with a grievance that the promotion ought to have been made to the rank of Naib Subedar – Writ petition allowed by the High Court – On appeal, held: The entire basis of the decision of the High Court was that those who were recruited prior to the restructuring exercise and were holding the post of Havildars had acquired a vested right of promotion to the post of Naib Subedar – This does not reflect the correct position in law – The right is to be considered for promotion in accordance with the Rules as they exist when the exercise is carried out for promotion – Thus, once the structure of the Assam Rifles underwent a change following the creation of the intermediate post of Warrant officer, persons holding the post of Havildar would be considered for promotion to the post of Warrant Officer – Service Law. Respondents were appointed between 1982 and 1989 on the post of Rifleman in Assam Rifles. At the relevant point of time they were working as Havildars. Under the Rules, as they existed earlier, the promotional avenue for a Havildar lay to the post of Naib Subedar. In 2011, Union of India introduced an intermediate rank of Warrant officer by the abolition/upgradation of one post of Havildar. In terms of the new Recruitment Rules i.e. Assam Rifles Warrant Officer (General Duty) Group ‘C’ combatised Posts Recruitment Rules, 2012, the post of Warrant Officer was created which was required to be filled up by promotion amongst members of the Assam Rifles holding the rank of Havildar. Consequent to which, promotion orders were issued for Havildars to the newly created post of Warrant Officer. Writ proceedings were instituted. The High Court allowed the writ petition and held that vacancies which arose prior to the amendment of the Recruitment Rules would necessarily be governed by the Rules which existed at the time of the occurrence of the vacancies. Hence, present Appeals.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. It is well-settled that there is no vested right to promotion, but a right be considered for promotion in accordance with the Rules which prevail on the date on which consideration for promotion takes place. This Court has held that there is no rule of universal application to the effect that vacancies must necessarily be filled in on the basis of the law which existed on the date when they arose. The decision of this Court in Y.V. Rangaiah vs. Sreenivasa Rao has been construed in subsequent decisions as a case where the applicable Rules required the process of promotion or selection to be completed within a stipulated time frame. Hence, it has been held in H.S. Grewal vs. Union of India that the creation of an intermediate post would not amount to an interference with the vested right to promotion. [Para 11][987-F-H; 988-A]
2. Once the structure of Assam Rifles underwent a change following the creation of the intermediate post of Warrant Officer, persons holding the post of Havildar would be considered for promotion to the post of Warrant Officer. The intermediate post of Warrant Officer was created as a result of the restructuring exercise. The High Court was in error in postulating that vacancies which arose prior to the amendment of the Recruitment Rules would necessarily be governed by the Rules which existed at the time of the occurrence of the vacancies. As the decided cases noted earlier indicate, there is no such rule of absolute or universal application. The entire basis of the decision of the High Court was that those who were recruited prior to the restructuring exercise and were holding the post of Havildars had acquired a vested right of promotion to the post of Naib Subedar. This does not reflect the correct position in law. The right is to be considered for promotion in accordance with the Rules as they exist when the exercise is carried out for promotion. [Para 14][989-E-G]
Y.V. Rangaiah v. Sreenivasa Rao (1983) 3 SCC 284; 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 – relied on.
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.