RAMA RAO AND ORS. versus M.G. MAHESHWARA RAO AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 9 S.C.R. 446 · Decided: 27-08-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.K. SEMA · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
RAMA RAO AND ORS. 
v. 
M.G. MAHESHWARA RAO AND ORS. 
AUGUST 27, 2007 
[H.K. SEMA AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANY AN,JJ.J 
Service Law-Promotion of employees of Administrative Tribunal-
Rules prescribing qualification of graduation for promotion-Stenographer 
C and Ministerial cadre being the feeder cadre to the promotional post-
App/icat ion by stenographer cadre challenging the prescription of 
qualification-Tribunal on judicial side altering the qualifications-On 
administrative side, Tribunal promoting the employees from stenographer 
cadre-Application by employees of Ministerial cadre before the Tribunal 
challenging the judicial as well as administrative decision of the Tribunal-
D Application dismissed-Writ Petition-High Court setting aside promotions 
of non-graduate stenographers and declining to· interfere with promotion of 
graduate stenographers-On appeal, held: There is nothing unreasonable in 
prescribing qualifications for promotion-The order of Tribunal altering the 
qualification prescribed by Rules was unsustainable-The Tribunal had acted 
E beyond its jurisdiction in doing so-The entire promotions of stenographers 
are liable to be set aside-The proper course is to undertake fresh exercise 
of promoting the officers from both the streams in accordance with Rules. 
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985-s.19-0rder of Tribunal challenged 
by ji·esh application u/s 19-By the affected persons not made party in the 
F previous application-Held: Affected persons had the· locus standi to move 
the application-Locus standi. 
Appellant-stenographers in Karnataka Administrative Tribuna~ filed an 
application before the Tribunal challenging the prescription of degree and 
test as qualifications for promotion to the post of Junior Judgment Writer in 
G the Recruitment Rules. Post of Assistant (Ministerial cadre) was also a feeder 
post for promotion to the post of Junior Judgment Writer. Assistants were 
not made party to the application. The tribunal allowed the applications and 
altered the qualifications prescribed. Thereafter, the Vice Chairman who had 
presided over the Bench, on administrative side proceeded to promote the 
H 
446 
t 
RAMARAOv. M.G.MAHESHWARARAO 
447 
stenographer on the basis of the qualification prescribed by him. 
A 
The Assistants, being aggrieved by the Judgment of the tribunal and as 
a consequence from the promotions to the stenographers, filed fresh 
applications u/s19 of Administrative Tribunals Act. Tribunal dismissed the 
applications. They filed Writ Petitions before High Court High Court allowed 
the Writ Petitions holding that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to alter the B 
qualifications for promotion; and that the promotions were bad as the same 
was done on the basis of unauthorized interference with the Rules. However, 
High Court set aside Qnly the promotions of non-graduate stenographers and 
declined to interfere with the promotions of graduate stenographers. Hence 
the present appeals by non-graduate stenographers and by the Assistants. 
C 
Stenographers contended that Assistants had no locus standi to move 
an application u/s 19 of the Act as they had not applied for modification of the 
previous order of the Tribunal; that High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain 
a proceeding against order of Administrative Tribunal as such jurisdiction 
was conferred on High Court subsequent to the date the order was passed by D 
the Tribunal. 
Dismissing the appeals filed by stenographers and allowing the appeals 
filed by the Assistants, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Assistants had the locus standi to move the application under E 
Section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, before the Tribunal and 
seek reconsideration of the earlier decision passed by it without notice to 
them and to show that the said order required to be reconsidered or that it 
was not a legal or a proper one. It cannot be said that the assistants could not 
have approached the Administrative Tribunal with their grievance and the 
Tribunal could not have considered their grievance or gone back on its earlier F 
decision. [Para 5) [451-G; 452-A, CJ 
K. Ajit Babu and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., (19971Supp3 S.C.R. 
56, relied on 
1.2. The fact that the jurisdiction of the High Court came to be G 
recognized only later, cannot change the situation, since when the High Court 
entertained the Writ Petition, it had the jurisdiction to do so and it had 
jurisdiction also to consider what was the effect of the earl

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