INDIAN RLY. CLASS II OFFICERS FEDN. AND ANR. versus ANIL KUMAR SANG HI AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 529 · Decided: 23-09-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

INDIAN RL Y. CLASS II OFFICERS FEDN. AND ANR. 
A 
i: 
ANIL KUMAR SANG HI AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 23, 2002 
(S. RAJENDRA BABU AND P. VENKATARAMA REDD!, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law: Recruitment and Promotion-Indian Railways Services of 
Signals Engineers-Recruitment Rules-Rule 4(b)-Stagnation in Group B 
Class JI officers -Creation of 76 additional posts to facilitate their absorption C 
in Group A-Appointment of 127 Group B Officers-Tribunal holding 
promotion in excess of normal quota of 40 per cent thus not valid-On 
appeal held, Government could vary percentage 10 give the benefit to the 
stagnating promotee officers-Such variation or relaxation is necessary in 
administrative interest and to cope with unforeseen contingencies-Hence 
order of tribunal set aside. 
D 
In order to clear stagnation of Group B Class II Officers of Signals 
Engineering Dept., Government created 76 additional posts to facilitate the 
absorption of Group B Officers in Group A Junior Time Scale of Indian 
Railway Service of Signal Engineers. These additional posts were to be filled 
by Group B Officers in relaxation of normal quota of 40 per cent and such E 
variation of quota was permissible under Rule 4(b) ofthe Recruitment Rules. 
127 Group B Officers were appointed to Group A Junior Time scale. 
Respondents-Group A Junior Scale Officers challenged the appointment 
of Croup B Officers on the ground that it was in excess of the quota and 
relaxation was not permissible. Tribunal held that the provision authorizing F 
variation of percentage in terms of concluding part of clause (b) of Rule 4 did 
not _authorize Government to exceed the ceiling of 40 per cent of vacancies in 
relation to departmental promotees; and that the 38 Group B officers who ' 
were promoted in excess of normal quota of 40 per cent have to be promoted ' 
on regular basis against future vacancies. Hence the present appeal. 
G 
Allowing the appeal, the Court. 
HELD: 1.1 No illegality has been committed by Union of India in 
appointing 127 Group B officers to the junior scale of Group A. Tribunal has 
529 
H 
530 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A committed an error of law in interpreting the relevant rule and holding that 
38 Group B Officers promoted in excess of normal quota of 40 per cent have 
to be promoted on regular basis against future vacancies. Hence, the order of 
Tribunal is set aside. 1537-B-CI 
1.2. Rule 4 clause (b) of the Recruitment Rules places a ceiling of 40 
B per cent on the vacancies to be filled by departmental promotion; in case of 
shortfall in the promotional quota of 40 per cent, those vacancies remaining 
should be allocated to direct recruits. Rule 4(b) in so far as it operates against 
the promotee officers has been diluted to a certain extent by reserving the 
power to vary the percentage allocated to promotees. The variation could be 
C both downward and upward, depending upon the exigencies of service and the 
march of events. If the variation was intended only to curtail but not to enhance 
the promotion quota of 40 per cent, suitable language could have been 
employed. That apart, the word 'not more than' itself would have provided some 
nexibility to the appointing authority to reduce the promotee quota in a given 
year for good and relevant reasons. Hence it is not appropriate and proper to 
D limit the ambit of variation to the reductioD of percentage. If the last sentence 
in clause (b) is to be read subject to the preceding sentence with the appended 
note, the very purpose for which such power is reserved to the Government 
will be lost. A reading of the Rule so as to confine the variation of percentage 
to impinge on the normal promotee quota but not vice-versa is clearly 
E unwarranted either on the plain language of the provision or its intendment. 
There is nothing which precludes the Government to take a policy decision 
that the percentage should be so varied as to give the benefit to the stagnating 
promotee officers. When once such policy decision is taken, the normal rule · 
that 40 per cent is the maximum for departmental promotees would stand 
protanto modified for the time being. Such variation, either upward or 
F downward should be based on rational basis and relevant considerations. When 
once such test is satisfied, there is no difficulty in giving effect to the variation 
of percentage so as to operate in favour of promotee officers. Tribunal harped 
on the fact that there is no power of relaxation under the 

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