LexSTATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS. versus RAJ KUMAR & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 847 [2022] 15 S.C.R. 847 847 STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS. v. RAJ KUMAR & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 9746 of 2011) MAY 20, 2022 [UDAY UMESH LALIT, S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JJ.] Service Law: Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1966 – H.P. Labour and Employment Department, Labour Officers, Class–II (Gazetted) Ministerial Services R & P Rules, 2006 – Conditions of service of public servant – Vacancies arose prior to the promulgation of the new rules – To be filled only as per the old rules or as per the amended rules – Five post of Labour Officer governed by the 1966 Rules, to be filled by promotion – On 20.07.2006, seven additional posts sanctioned for labour officers, and total posts increased from 5 to 12 – Subsequently, the 1966 Rules amended – Under the New Rules of 2006, recruitment to the post of Labour Officer is to be made by promotion as well as direct recruitment in the ratio of 75 per cent and 25 per cent respectively – Out of the total number of 12 posts, the promotional posts increased from 5 to 9 (being 75 per cent) and direct recruitment posts came to 3 (being 25 per cent) – Respondent no. 1 to 3-Labour Inspector challenged the filling up of 25 percent of the posts by direct recruitment on the ground that the vacancies arose before the promulgation of the New Rules and thus, all the vacancies must be filled only by promotion – On direction by the tribunal, the State govt. considered the grievance and rejected the same – Challenged again before the tribunal – During the pendency, State government called up for applications for filling up the 3 posts of Labour Officers under the quota of direct recruitment – Respondent no. 4 to 6 appointed to the post – Appointments challenged by the respondent no.1 to 3 – Division Bench allowed the petition relying on Rangaiah’s case – On appeal, held : Rangaiah’s case must be seen in the context of its own facts, coupled with the declarations therein that there is no rule of universal application to the effect that vacancies must necessarily be filled on the basis of rules which existed on the date A B C D E F G H 848 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 15 S.C.R. which they arose – Statement in Rangaiah that the “vacancies which occurred prior to the amended rules would be governed by the old rules and not by the amended rules”, does not reflect the correct proposition of law governing services under the Union and the States, thus, it is overruled – There is no right for an employee outside the rules governing the services – Services under the State are in the nature of a status, a hallmark of which is the need of the State to unilaterally alter the rules to subserve the public interest – 2006 Rules, governing the services of the respondents came into force immediately after they were notified – There is no provision in the said rules to enable the respondents to be considered as per the 1966 Rules – Furthermore, there is no other right that respondents no. 1 to 3 can claim for such consideration – Plea of the Government based on its policy decision to restructure the cadre by creating additional posts and also providing for direct recruitment by amending the rules is accepted – Thus, the judgment of High Court is set aside – Art. 309, 310, 311 – Constitution of India. Constitution of India : Art. 310 – Doctrine of pleasure – Purpose/Object – Stated. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 A review of the fifteen cases that have distinguished Rangaiah’s case would demonstrate that this Court has been consistently carving out exceptions to the broad proposition formulated in Rangaiah. The findings in these judgments, that have a direct bearing on the proposition formulated by Rangaiah are that there is no rule of universal application that vacancies must be necessarily filled on the basis of the law which existed on the date when they arose, Rangaiah’s case must be understood in the context of the rules involved therein; that it is now a settled proposition of law that a candidate has a right to be considered in the light of the existed rules, which implies the “rule in force” as on the date consideration takes place; that the right to be considered for promotion occurs on the date of consideration of the eligible candidates; The Government is entitled to take a conscious policy decision not to fill up the vacancies arising prior to the amendment of the rules. The employee does not acquire any vested right to being consi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.