P. DHARNI & ORS. versus GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.

Citation: [2013] 10 S.C.R. 982 · Decided: 01-07-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2013] 10 S.C.R. 982 
P. DHARNI & ORS. 
v. 
GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 4832 of 2013) 
JULY 1, 2013 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
c 
Promotion - Out-of-turn/accelerated promotion - Claim for 
- By Motor Vehicle Inspector (Grade II) - To the post of 
Regional Transport Officer - Under r.36(b)(ii) of Tamil Nadu 
State and Subordinate Services Rules - After rendering about 
3 years of service - Permissibility - Held: Special rules framed 
0 prescribing conditions of eligibility and manner and method 
of appointment from the Post of Motor Vehicles Inspector 
(Grade II) to the post of Motor Vehicles Inspector (Grade I) and 
from the post of Motor Vehicles lnspector(Grade I) to the post 
of Regional Transport Officer - The claimant, since not 
E fulfilling the eligibility criteria for promotion stipulated in 
Special Rules, would not be entitled to accelerated promotion 
under r.36(b)(ii) of the General Rules - Moreover, r.36(b)(ii) 
which contemplates accelerated promotion, only in cases 
where seniority is the sole criti3rionfor promotion, would not 
be applicable to the post of Regional Transport Officer, 
F because the appointment on the post is not made by seniority 
- Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules -
r.36(b)(ii). 
Respondent No.5, an employee on the post of Motor 
G Vehicles Inspector (Grade II), after his 3 years of service 
on the post, moved a representation seeking his out-of 
turn/accelerated promotion to the post of Regional 
Transport Officer on the basis of his outstanding 
performance in the service. His name was recommended 
H 
982 
P. DHARNI & ORS. v. GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU & 
983 
ORS. 
for out-of•-turn/accelerated promotion by the authorities 
A 
of the department citing r.36(b)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu State 
and Subordinate Service Rules. The claim of the 
respondent No.5 was rejected by State Government. The 
same was challenged and the Administrative Tribunal 
allowing the claim of respondent No.5, directed the State 
B 
to issue an order promoting respondent No.5 as Regional 
Transport Officer. The order was further upheld by High 
Court and the appeal thereagainst before Supreme Court 
was withdrawn by the State. 
The appellants in the present appeal, who were the 
C 
employees senior to respondent No.5 and whose rights 
were liable to ·be prejudicially affected by the accelerated 
promotion of respondent No.5, filed appeal to this Court, 
challenging the order of accelerated promotion of 
respondent No.5. 
D 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. A perusal of Rule 2 of Tamil Nadu State and 
Subordinate Services Rules leaves no room for any 
E 
doubt, that in case of repugnancy between the Special 
Rules and the General Rules, the Special Rules will 
prevail over the General Rules. Rule 36(b)(ii) of the Tamil 
Nadu State and-Subordinate Services Rules, falls in Part 
II - General Rules, is clearly a General Rule. The rules 
prescribing the conditions of eligibility and the manner/ 
method of appointment by promotion from the post of 
Motor Vehicles Inspector (Grade II) to the post of Motor 
Vehicles Inspector (Grade I), framed under Section 42 of 
the Tamil Nadu Transport Subordinate Service, are 
Special Rules. The rules prescribing the conditions of G 
eligibility and the manner/method of appointment by 
transfer to the post of Regional Transport Officer, interalia 
out of Motor Vehicles Inspectors (Grade I), framed under 
Section 28 of the Tamil Nadu Transport Service, are 
Special Rules. And, in case of a conflict between the 
F 
H 
984 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2013] 10 S.C.R. 
A Special Rules and the General Rules, the Special Rules 
will have an overriding effect over the General Rules. 
[Para 21] (1011-B-E] 
2. The Special Rule prescribing the minimum period 
8 of eligibility for appointment to the post of Regional 
Transport Officer, cannot be overlooked while allowing 
out-of-turn/accelerated appointment to respondent No. 5, 
to the post of Regional Transport Officer. The claim made 
by respondent No. 5, for out-of-turn promotion under 
Rule 36(b)(ii) of the General Rules, would be valid only if 
C respondent no.5, had satisfied the conditions of eligibility 
stipulated in the Special Rules for appointment to the 
post of Regional Transport Officer. In the present case, 
respondent No. 5 made a representation claiming out-of-
turn/accelerated promotion, only when he had rendered 
D just over three years of service as Mot

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