DR. RAJINDER SINGH versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] 2 S.C.R. 1108 · Decided: 11-04-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
DR. RAJINDER SINGH 
v. 
THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. 
APRIL 11, 2001 
[K.T. THOMAS AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] 
Service L:nv : 
Punjab Civil Medical (State Senice Class I) Rules, 1972-Rules 2(2) 
and 9A-Promotion of respondent as Deputy, Director, Health Services on 
recommendations of Departmental Promotion Cornmittee based on Govern-
ment Notification treating Class II service as Class I service-Validity of-
Held, respondent did not have requisite qualification on relevant date as per 
Rules-Government Notification cannot substitute Se111ice Rules-Promotion 
of respondent set aside with direction for fresh appointment. 
Respondent was promoted as Deputy Director (Health Services) on 
the basis of recommendations of Departmental Promotion Committee. 
Appellant filed a Writ Petition before High Court challenging the promo-
tion on the ground that the respondent did not possess requisite qualifica-
tions on the relevant date under Rule 9A sub-rule (c) of Punjab Civil 
Medical (State Service Class I) Rules, 1972 (PCMS Class I). The High 
Court dismissed the Writ Petition relying upon a Government notifica-
-1 
tion dated 9.4.1989 which treated PCMS Class II as Class I. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
F 
HELD : 1.1. At the relevant date when the respondent was recom-
mended for promotion, he had not completed 10 years of service within the 
meaning of Rule 9A read with Ruic 2(2) of the Punjab Civil Medical (State 
Service Class I) Rules, 1972. As the respondent was not possessing the 
requisite qualifications on the relevant date, he could not be considered for 
G 
promotion to the post of Deputy Director, Health Services. [1111-A-B] 
1.2. A perusal of notification dated 9.4.1989 clearly indicates that 
Government itself was aware that the two classes of service cannot he 
equated or treated alike without amending the Rules. The Rules have not 
been amended so far. The Departmental Promotion Committee erred in 
>-
H 
recommending the promotion of the respondent ignoring the Rules and 
ll08 
' 
DR. RAJINDER SINGH v. STATE [SETHI, J.] 
only relying upon a notification. [1111-E-F] 
1109 
1.3. The settled position of law is that no Government Order, Notifi· 
cation or Circular can be a substitute of the statutory Rules framed with 
the authority of law. Following any other course would be disastrous in as 
much as it would deprive the security of tenure and right of equality 
conferred upon the civil servants under the Constitutional scheme. It 
would be negating the so far accepted service jurisprudence. The High 
Court was not justified in observing that even without amendment of the 
Rules, the Class II of the Service can be treated as Class I only by way of 
notification. Following such a course amounts to amending the Rules by a 
Government Order and ignoring the mandate of Article 309 of the Consti· 
tution. [1111-F-H] 
2. As the respondent was not eligihle for consideration to the post of 
Deputy Director, Health Services the Departmental Promotion Committee 
committed a mistake in recommending the respondent. Hence, the recom-
mendation of the Committee as also the consequential promotion of the 
respondent is set aside and the said post is declared to have fallen vacant 
forthwith. Respondent-State is directed to appoint a fresh Departmental 
Promotion Committee who shall consider the cases of all the eligible offic· 
ers including the appellant and the respondent and recommend for promo-
tion any of the eligible persons from the service in accordance with the 
Service Rules, totally ignoring notification dated 9.4.1989. [1112-A-E) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2720 of 2001. 
From the Judgment and dated 7.1.1999 of the Punjab and Haryana High 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
Court in CWP No. 1328/98. 
F 
Ranjit Kr., Sudhir Walia and Mahinder Singh Dahiya for the Appellant. 
TLV Iyer and Anoop Chondhry, R.K. Talwar. Yash Pal Dhingra, Rajeev 
ShaJma and Vinod Shukla for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SETHI, J. Leave granted. 
G 
Aggrieved by the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion 
Committee held on 14.1.1998 and consequential promotion of respondent 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
lllO 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] 2 S.C.R. 
No.3 as Deputy Director (Health Services), the appellant filed a writ petition 
in the High Court mainly on the ground that the promotee-respondent did not 
possess the requisite qualifications under the Service Rules applicable in the 
case. Relyi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.