RAMINDER SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

Citation: [2016] 5 S.C.R. 310 · Decided: 19-09-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: JASTI CHELAMESWAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A· 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
[2016] 5 S.C.R. 310 
RAMINDER SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2127 of2009) 
SEPTEMBER 19, 2016 
[J. CHELAMESWAR AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Promotion - Cancellation of - The State merged Grade-C post 
in Grade-B post of Research Assistant, however did not amend the 
Service Class Rules and continued with un-amended Rules for filling 
vacancies - Respondent No.2 invited applications for filling post 
of Research Assistant Grade B - Appellant, an in-service candidate 
submitted his application - Competent authorities recommended his 
promotion - Appellant promoted - Complaints made against 
promotion - Grade Promotion of appellant was cancelled and he 
was reverted from the post of Research Assistant Grade B - Held: 
The State was supposed to make appropriate amendments in Rules 
after merging one post into another - So long as this exercise was 
not done by the State, employees who had fulfilled the requirement 
prescribed in the existing Rules for consideration of their cases for 
promotion, they could not be denied the benefits under the Rules -
There was no suppression of any material information by appellant 
and his record was also not adverse - No justification by the State 
for recalling the promotional order of appellant on basis of some 
complaints, which had no legal foundation - Promotion of appellant 
to be restored - Punjab Public WorkS Department (Irrigation 
Branch), Research Assistants' State Service Class III Rules, 1956 -
r.10. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The State was not justified in cancelling the 
appellant's promotion order as also the High Court was not 
justified in upholding the cancellation order. First, it is an admitted 
case that the appellant being an in service candidate, his case for 
promotion from the post of Silt Observer/Analyst to the next 
promotional post of "Research Assistant Grade B" was required 
310 
RAMINDER SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. 
to be considered as an in-service candidate as provided in Rule 
10 of Punjab Public Works Department (Irrigation Branch), 
Research Assistants' State Service Class III Rules, 1956. Second, 
it was again an admitted case that the appellant was working as a 
Silt Observer/Analyst and in addition to the duties assigned to 
this post, he was also performing the duties of Research Assistant 
Grade B as per the directives of the office. Third, the appellant 
had admittedly fulfilled the eligibility criteria and qualification 
prescribed in Rule 10 (l)(b)(i) and (2) as also the qualifications 
prescribed for appointment to the post in question for direct 
recruits. Fourth, the competent authorities had also 
recommended the case of the promotion of the appellant certifying 
that the appellant is fit for promotion. Fifth, the appellant worked 
on the promotional post and performed the duties assigned to 
the promotional post from 14.12.2001 till 10.12.2002. Sixth, since 
the Government, despite merging the Grade C post in Grade-B 
post, did not amend the Rules and on the other hand continued 
with the on-amended Rules for filling the vacancies including 
vacancies by promotion, hence, the case of the appellant had to 
be considered in the light of the requirement of the Rules. It 
was necessary for the State to have made appropriate amendments 
in the Rules after merger of one post into another, but so long as 
this exercise was not done by the State, the employees, who had 
otherwise fulfilled the requirement prescribed in the existing 
Rules for consideration of their cases for promotion, they could 
not be denied the benefits flowing from the Rules and lastly, in 
the absence of any adverse entries or/and record of the appellant 
and further in the absence of any allegation made against the 
appellant for suppressing any material information, there is no 
justification on the part of the State to have recalled the 
promotional order. of the appellant on the basis of some 
complaints said to have been made by someone after a long lapse 
of time which also had no factual or/and legal foundation. [Paras 
28 and 29] [317-B-G) 
1.2 The appellant is restored to the promotional post of 
Research Assistant Grade B. If the appellant has discharged the 
duties of Research Assistant Grade B after the cancellation of 
3 II 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
his promotional order for any reason in addition to his duties 
assigned during the period in question then he would be entitled 
H 

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