JAGDISH PRASAD versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

Citation: [2011] 12 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 07-07-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 12 S.C.R. 1 
JAGDISH PRASAD 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 5102-5103 OF 2011) 
JULY 07, 2011 
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.] 
A 
B 
, 
Service Law - Selection by promotion - Rajasthan 
Transport Service Rules, 1979 - rr. 6, 10 & 24 - Selection/ 
promotion process - Validity of -Promotion to post of District c 
Transport Officer (OTO) from the post of Motor Vehicle 
Inspectors - Amendment to Schedule I and deletion of 
Schedule II of the 1979 Rules in the year 1992 leading to 
deletion of requirement of passing qualifying examination for 
the higher post of OTO - Effect of- Selection/promotion order 0 
dated 8th July, 1994 - Action of the State government in 
clubbing all the vacancies of more than 10 years (from 1983-
84 till 1993-94) and giving promotions challenged - Whether 
by amendment to Schedule I and the deletion of Schedule II 
of the 1979 Rules the effect of the statutory provisions like E 
rr. 6, 10, 24 read in their plain language stood diluted and the 
statutory provisions were rendered ineffective and inoperative 
- Held: The services of the Transport Department in all 
relevant posts are covered under the provisions of the 1979 
Rules and their purpose is to make promotions on merit or 
merit-cum-seniority in the prescribed proportion of 50: 50 -
F 
The Schedule of the 1979 Rules has to be in conformity with, 
and is required to advance the object of the primary statutory 
provision and cannot in any way wipe out its effect and spirit 
- Even if Schedule II of the 1979 did not exist, it was obligatory 
on the part of the respondent to evolve a me;lhodology to G 
make promotions purely on merit - Right from 1983-84 till 
1993-94 no examination was conducted by the appropriate 
authority despite issuance of notifications for holding exams 
on a few of these occasions - Representation from the 
1 
H 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 12 S.C.R. 
A Transport Inspector's Union cannot be considered as a 
sufficient cause or reason for not holding the examinations 
for more than ten years and cau$ing serious prejudice to the 
candidates who might have been sufficiently meritorious to 
qualify in the exams and be considered for promotion to 50% 
B of the posts under the promotion quota - Even after 1993-94, 
the process of selection adopted by the State Government 
cannot be accepted - The preparation of seniority list, method 
of selection and clubbing of vacancies were apparently in 
violation of the statutory Rules - Selection/promotion order 
c dated 8th July, 1994 accordingly set aside with further 
directions - Fresh process of selection to be held by the 
competent authority in accordance with Rules - Selection by 
promotion for yearwise vacancies shall be filled in by 
compliance to r.24(6) - The authorities shall fill 50% of the 
0 
promotion vacancies purely by merit, for ,which it will evolve 
a methodology, either by holding a qualifying examination as 
was being conducted prior to 1992, or by any other 
examination which would satisfy the basic criteria of selection 
by merit - Remaining 50% of the promotion posts shall be 
E filled by seniority-cum-merit for which the departmental DPC 
shall meet within stipulated time - Secretary (Transport), 
Government of Rajasthan directed to conduct an enquiry 
personally and fix responsibility on all the officers/officials 
responsible for not conducting qualifying examination in 
accordance with Rules from 1983 to 1994 and subsequent 
F thereto in accordance with law - The vacancies would be 
clubbed only for the purposes of calculating an arithmetical 
figure but, will be filled in accordance with yearwise vacancies 
and considering the officers eligible for promotion to the post 
of OTO in accordance with seniority cum merit rule for 50% 
G of the promotion post - All remaining 50% posts shall be filled 
up purely on merit and by holding an examination -
Persons 
already promoted would not be reverted and none of them 
would be entitled to claim any financial benefits, if they have 
already retired from the post of OTO - Candidates now 
H 
JAGDISH PRASAD v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & 
3 
ORS. 
' 
' 
selected in furtherance to the directions contained in the A 
judgment shall not be entitled to any arrears of pay because 
though their promotion may be relatable to a previous year, 
such promotion shall be notional without any consequential 
benefits. 
Administrative Law - Rule of fairness - Held: Is an 8 
essential feature
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.