UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC. ETC. versus S. MAADASAMY AND ANR. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [2019] 8 S.C.R. 234 · Decided: 01-05-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
234
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 8 S.C.R.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC. ETC.
v.
S. MAADASAMY AND ANR. ETC. ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos.5969-5970 of 2009)
MAY 01, 2019
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Service Law:Recruitment Rules – Post of Principal,
Grade ‘A’ (Senior Scale) and Joint Chief Inspector of Factories –
Amendment to the Rules by a Notification, equating the post of
Principal, Grade ‘A’ (Senior Scale) with the post of JCIF – Challenge
to – Amended Recruitment Rules quashed and set aside by the
tribunal as also High Court – On appeal held: Recruitment Rules
were amended and the two posts came to be equated after the
concurrence of the UPSC and after the draft rules were approved
by the UPSC – When a conscious decision was taken by the UPSC
and the Government after considering the pros and cons of the
matter and considering the relevant factors, being a policy decision,
the tribunal was not justified in quashing and setting aside the
statutory rules – Thus, the High Court erred in upholding the order
of the tribunal – Even otherwise, the duties to be performed by
JCIF and Principal, Grade ‘A’ (Senior Scale) can be said to be
identical and/or similar in nature.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 It appears that the High Court dismissed the
writ petition, confirming the judgment and order passed by the
tribunal quashing and setting aside the amended rules equating
the post of Principal, Grade ‘A’ (Senior Scale) with the post of
JCIF mainly on the ground that the nature of duties of both the
posts, responsibilities and powers exercised by the officers
holding the posts are not similar and/or identical. Relying upon
the said two decisions of this Court-P.K. Roy and Roop Lal case,
the High Court dismissed the writ petitions preferred by the
appellants-Union of India and confirmed the judgment and order
passed by the tribunal quashing and setting the amended rules
vide notification-G.O. No. 6 of 2015 equating the post of Principal,
[2019]  8 S.C.R. 234
234
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
235
Grade ‘A’ (Senior Scale) with that of the post of JCIF. However,
neither the tribunal nor the High Court has considered the
relevant factors which were considered while amending the rules
and equating the two posts. The High Court also did not consider
the fact that the UPSC gave its concurrence to the amended rules
and only thereafter the rules were amended and the posts were
equated. [Para 6.3] [244-C-E]
1.2 From the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the UPSC
before the tribunal in O.A. No. 814 of 2005, it appears that the
rules were amended after the concurrence of the UPSC and after
the draft rules were approved by the UPSC. From the affidavit-
in-reply filed by the UPSC, it appears that the UPSC gave its
concurrence after due deliberation with the Government from
time to time. When a conscious decision was taken by the UPSC
and the Government while amending rules and equating the two
posts after considering the pros and cons of the matter and
considering the relevant factors being a policy decision, the
tribunal was not justified in quashing and setting aside the
statutory rules. Therefore, the High Court committed a grave
error in dismissing the writ petition and confirming the judgment
and order passed by the Tribunal quashing and setting aside the
amended rules by notification-G.O. No. 6 of 2015 equating the
post of Principal, Grade ‘A’ (Senior Scale) with that of the post of
JCIF. Even otherwise, on considering the nature and duties of
JCIF and Principal, Grade ‘A’ (Senior Scale), the duties to be
performed by JCIF and Principal, Grade ‘A’ (Senior Scale) can
be said to be identical and/or similar in nature.
[Para 6.4-6.6] [244-E-F; 248-E-G; 249-B]
1.3 The impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court in Writ Petition arising out of the judgment and order
passed by the tribunal quashing and setting aside the recruitment
rules issued vide notification-G.O. No. 6 of 2015 equating the
post of Principal, Grade ‘A’ (Senior Scale) with that of JCIF, cannot
be concurred with and is quashed and set aside.
[Para 7, 7.1] [249-D-E]
1.4 The impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court in Writ Petition arising out of the judgment and order
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. S. MAADASAMY AND ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
236
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 8 S.C.R.
passed by the tribunal by which the tribunal set aside the order
of transfer is concerned, the same stands disposed of. However,
the liberty is reserved in favour o

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