UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus S.K. SAIGAL AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 1165 · Decided: 15-11-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.K. SEMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

}-
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
v. 
S.K. SAIGAL AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 15, 2006 
[H.K. SEMAAND P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN,JJ.] 
Service Law - Promotion - Rules governing service conditions -
Employee claiming promotion dehors mandate of Rules, without challenging 
A 
B 
the Rules - Grant of, by tribunal without striking the Rules - Correctness of C 
- Held· Tribunal transgressed its jurisdiction in granting relief dehors the 
mandate of the Rules - Such orders will not bind this Court - Jl/egal decisions 
cannot be allowed to be perpetuated - Thus, order of tribunal set aside -
Central Ground Water Board (Scientific Group 'A' Posts) Recruitment Rules, 
1995. 
Precedent - Binding precedent, requirement for - Held: Decision becomes 
a precedent when it decides the law in accordance with Act and the Rules 
- Decision contrary to law and Rules does not form a precedent. 
D 
In accordance with Rule 7(2)(b) read with column 12 of Central Ground 
Water Board (Scientific Group 'A' Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1995, E 
deputationists for promotion to the post of Scientists Grade 'C' in the scale 
of Rs. 3000-4500 required 8 years experience in the scale of Rs. 2000-3500 
as Jr. Hydrologists on a regular basis whereas departmental candidates 
working in the scale of Rs. 2200-4000 required 5 years regular se!vice in 
Grade 'B'. Respondents working as Junior Hydro-Geologist, Junior 
Geophysicist Chemists and Hydro-Meteorologists did not complete 5 years of F 
service in Grade 'B' in the scale of Rs. 2200-4000 but had already completed 
' 
8 years of service in the scale of Rs. 2000-3500. They claimed promotion to 
Grade 'C' posts in the scale of Rs. 3000-4500, as in the case of deputationists. 
Tribunal allowed the petition, albeit without striking down the Rules. High 
Court upheld the order. 
G 
The question which arose for consideration in these appeals was whether 
the mandate ofthe Rules governing service conditions could be ignored without 
1165 
H 
1166 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 
-( 
A challenging the Rules and without striking them down. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. There was no challenge made to the Central Ground Water 
Board (Scientific Group 'A' Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1995 as 
B discriminatory or ultra-vires, much less Rule 7(2)(b) of the Rules. 
Respondents clearly admitted by themselves that they had not worked for 5 
years as Scientists 'B', which is the mandate of the Rules and~ therefore, the 
tribunal transgressed its jurisdiction granting the relief to the respondents 
dehors the mandate of the Rules. It is settled principle that no mandamus can 
c 
be issued which would be contrary to the Act and the Rules. [1170-B-FJ 
State o/U.P. v. Harish Chandra, (1996) 9 SCC 309 and Union of India 
v. Association/or Democratic Reforms and Anr., (2002] 5 SCC 294, relied on. 
1.2. In the absence of challenge to the vires of the Rules, the submission 
D 
that the deputation~ts and the departmental candidates have formed one class 
of the officers and, as such it would be impermissible to create any class within 
the class under the Rules, cannot be accepted. (1170-G-H) 
~ 
S.G. Jaisinghaniv. Union of India and Ors., (1967) 2 SCR 703, referred 
to. 
E 
1.3. Respondents relying on the decisions of High Court in which dmilar 
questions had been raised and the relief was granted and the orders were 
implemented, submitted that ~he impugned order passed by the High Court 
' 
may not be disturbed, cannot be a:cepted. Such orders, if any, passed dehors 
the rules will not bind this Court, notwithstanding the orders being 
F implemented. Illegal decisions cannot be aUowed to be perpetuated. A decision 
which is contrary to law and rules does not form a precedent. A decision 
becomes a precedent when it decides the law in accordance wit~ the Act and 
the Rules. Also the orders on which reliance was placed are under challenge 
in appeals before this Court and are pending. (1171-A-DI 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 2600-2601 of 
2005. 
From the Judgments and Orders dated 22-8-2003 and 27-2-2004 of the 
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No. 13192/200r~ 
H 
and R.A. No.13/2004 in C.W.P. No.13192/2003 respectively. 
. ( 
•• 
U.0.1. v. S.K. SAIGAL [H.K. SEMA, J.] 
1167 
A.S. Rawat, A.A.G., T.S. Doabia, S.Wasim A.Qadri, Ms. Sunita Shanna, A 
D.S. Mithra, Manoj Swarup, S.K. Nandy, Ankur Mittal, Javed M. Rao, Shahid 
Ali Rao, R. Santhan Krishnan, Ms. K. Radha Rani, Praveen K. P
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.