UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus TUSHAR RANJAN MOHANTY

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 651 · Decided: 14-07-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
TUSHAR RANJAN MOHANTY 
JULY 14, 1994 
[KULDIP SINGH AND S. MOHAN, JJ.) 
B 
Service Law-Indian Statistical Service Rules, 1961-Rules B(l)(b)(i) 
& Rule ~3 as amended by !SS (Amendment) Rules, 1989-/letrospective 
amendment of Rule l~Validity-l'roinotion to Grade III-Vested right of 
general category candidates to be considered for promotion-Whether such a C · 
right can be rendered nugatory by retrospective legislation-Held, 
No-Retrospective operation of amended rule 13 not sustainable. 
Constitution of India, 1951>-Articles 14 and 16. 
Respondents 2 to 9, members of the Scheduled Castes were promoted D 
from Grade IV to Grade III In the Indian Statistical Service, against the 
vacancies reserved for the Schedule Castes & Schedule Tribes, Respondent 
1, a general category candidate being senior to respondents 2 to 9 In Grade 
IV, submitted a representation to consider his case for promotion under the 
proviso to Rule 8(l)(b)(I) of the Indian Statistical Service Rules as his E 
juniors had been promoted without declaring him unfit. The representation 
was rejected on the ground that respondents 2 to 9 had been promoted on 
the basis of reservation policy. Respondent 1 challenged the promotion of 
respondents 2 to 9 before the Central Administrative Tribunal on the 
ground that the reservation, in respect of appointments to the service by 
promotion, was not permitted under the Rules. The Tribunal allowed the F 
application and held that promotion of respondents 2 to 9 in supersession 
of the claim of respondent! was against the rules. This appeal, by the Union 
of India, is against the judgment of the Tribunal. 
The rules were amended with effect from November 27, 1972 by 
Notification dated February 20, 1989. It was contended by the Union of G 
India that In view of the amendment of the rules with retrospective effect, 
the judgment of the Tribunal was liable to be set aside and the promotions 
of respondents 2 to 9 to Grade III of the service were to be upheld. 
Members of the general category have, however, challenged the validity of 
the retrospective amendment of the rules. It is urged that the retrospective H 
651 
652 
~ 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A I ·operation of amended rules 13 takes away the vested rights of the general 
category candidates senior to respondents 2 to 9 and therefore, the 
retrospective operation of amended rule 13 is arbitrary and, as such, 
violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. 
There can be no dispute that when respondents 2 to 9 were promoted 
B to Grade llJ, other general category candidates senior to them had a vested 
right to be considered for promotion. Therefore, the que.slion for con-
sideration was whetller such a right can be rendered nugatory by 
retrospective operation. 
c 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The legislatures and the competent authority under 
Article 309 of the Constitution of India have tile power to make laws with 
•etrospective effect. This power, however, cannot be used to justify the 
arbitrary, illegal or unconstitutional acts of the executive. When a person 
D is deprived of an accrued-right vested in him under a statute or under tile 
Constitution and be successfully challenges the same in the Court of law, 
the legislature cannot render the said right and the relief obtained 
nugatory be enacting retrospective legislation. [662·C·D) 
l.Z.The retrospective operation of the amended rule 13 cannot be 
E sustained. This Court is satisfied that the retrospective amendment of rule 
13 of the rules takes away the vested rights' of other general candidates 
senior to respondents 2 to 9. Tiierefore, it is declared that amended rule 
13 to the extent it has been made operative retrospectively to be un· 
reasonable, arbitrary and, as such violative Articles 14 & 16 of the Con· 
F 
stitution of India. (655-H, 656-A) 
State of Gujarat & Anr. v. Raman Lal Keshav Lal Soni & Ors., (1983) 
2 SCC 33; Ex. Capt. K.C. Arora & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors., [1984) 3 
SCR 623; T. R. Kapoor & Ors., v. State of Haryana & Ors., (1987) 1 SCR 
584 and P.D. Aggarwal & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., (1987) 3 SCC 622,. 
G relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3844 of 
1989. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.11.88 of the Central Ad· 
H ministrative Tribunal, Calcutta in O.A. No. 336 of 1988. 
• 
U.0.I. v. T.R. MOHANTY [KULDIP SINGH, J.] 
653 
N.N. Goswamy, C.V.S. Rao and 

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