U.O.I. THROUGH GOVT. OF PONDICHERRY AND ANR. versus V. RAMAKRISHNAN AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 291 · Decided: 07-10-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

U.0.1. THROUGH GOVT. OF PONDICHERRY AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
V. RAMAKRISHNAN AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 7, 2005 
' 
[S.B. SINHA AND R.V. RA VEENDRAN, JJ.] 
B 
Service law: 
Recruitment Rules, 1996-Post of Chief Engineer-Appointment of 
claimant, on deputation pending sele~tion of regular incumbent by Competent C 
Authority, thereafter Repatriation Order passed, and posted at other place-
Meanwhile, Draft Rules framed, eligibility criteria altered and five years 
experience for the post reduced to three years-Promotion of Superintending 
Engineer having three years of experience, on ad hoc basis-Appointment 
challenged by claimant-Both the tribunal and the High Court upheld the D 
claim-Plea of Superintending Engineer that Draft Rules were approved and 
notice itas issued-On appeal held: Valid Rules made even though it becomes 
unworkable continues to be in force unless repealed or replaced by another 
rule or amended-Draft Rules cannot form the basis for grant of promotion, 
when Rules to the contrary holds the field-Thus, till New Rules framed were 
given effect to, promotion to the post of Chief Engineer could not be effected E 
in derogation to the criteria prescribed under the existing rules-Hence, order 
of tribunal and High Court upheld-Constitution of India, 1950---Article 309 
proviso. 
Government Services-Deputation-Deputationist, right of-Held: Has 
no legal right to continue or to be absorbed in the deputed post, but there is F 
no bar-Further, specified term of deputationist should not be curtailed except 
on unsuitability or unsatisfactory performance-Also in case of non-specified 
term, reversion can be questioned when it is malafide. 
Constitution of India, 1950---Article 16-Equal opportunity in matters G 
of public employment-Candidates with same qualificaiion-Govemment in 
stead of asking the Authority to constitute Departmental Promotion Committee, 
requesting it to regularize the services of an adhoc promotee from the date 
of his promotion-Held: Is a malafide action on the part of the Government. 
291 
H 
A 
292 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
The First Respondent was appointed to the post of Chief Engineer 
of the Public Works Department of the Government of Pondicherry, on 
short term deputation/ tern porary basis till a regular appointment was 
made by UPSC. The appointment was made under the Recruitment Rules, 
1996 governed by the Notification issued by the Government under the 
B proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Within 8 months the 
respondent was relieved from his duties and was repatriated to his parent 
department. The first respondent filed application challenging the 
repatriation order before the tribunal. The appellant in the connecting 
appeal, who was Superintending Engineer with three years experience and 
holding the current charge of the duties of the post of .Chief Engineer at 
C that time challenged the deputation of the first respondent. The application 
was dismissed since the appellant was not eligible to hold the said post 
and regular appointment in terms of the Recruitment Rules was yet to 
take place. Meanwhile, Draft Rules were framed and the eligibility criteria 
of five years experience for the post of Chief Engineer was reduced to three 
years and the appellant was promoted on adhoc basis. The First 
D Respondent was posted as Director of Works (SR) at other place. Even 
then he challenged the appointlpent and filed amendment application 
before the tribunal and the same was allowed. Aggrieved, appellant filed 
appeals. The High Court dismissed the appeals holding that the First 
Respondent who was sent on deputation pending selection of the regular 
E incumbent by the UPSC had a right to hold the said post till such time; 
and the appellant was ineligible to be appointed as Chief Engineer tiH the 
Draft Rules were approved. Hence the present appeals. 
Appellants contended that the Draft Rules having been approved 
wherefor an appropriate Notification had been ,issued and as the DPC is 
F likely to hold its meeting at an early date, the application filed by the first 
respondent became infructuous; that the High Court erred in not 
considering the effect of the draft rules as in terms thereof the appellant 
could have been considered; and that the appellant was not given 
opportunity of filing a reply to the amendment application. 
G 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Valid Rules made under proviso appended to Article 309 
of the Constitu

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