UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus KRISHNA KUMAR & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 1 S.C.R. 982 · Decided: 14-01-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
982
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 1 S.C.R.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
v.
KRISHNA KUMAR & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 672 of 2019)
JANUARY 14, 2019
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD
AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Assam Rifles Warrant Officer (General Duty) Group ‘C’
Combatised Posts Recruitment Rules, 2012 – Promotion to the post
of Naib Subedar after re-structuring of Assam Rifles in 2011 and
creation of Recruitment Rules in 2012 – Eligibility of – In 2011,
Union of India introduced an intermediate rank of Warrant officer
by the abolition/upgradation of one post of Havildar – Thereafter,
Recruitment Rules, 2012 were notified – In terms of the Recruitment
Rules, 2012 the post of Warrant Officer was created which was
required to be filled up by promotion amongst members of the Assam
Rifles holding the rank of Havildar – Consequently, promotion orders
were issued for Havildars to the newly created post of Warrant
Officer – Writ proceedings were instituted with a grievance that the
promotion ought to have been made to the rank of Naib Subedar –
Writ petition allowed by the High Court – On appeal, held: The
entire basis of the decision of the High Court was that those who
were recruited prior to the restructuring exercise and were holding
the post of Havildars had acquired a vested right of promotion to
the post of Naib Subedar – This does not reflect the correct position
in law – The right is to be considered for promotion in accordance
with the Rules as they exist when the exercise is carried out for
promotion – Thus, once the structure of the Assam Rifles underwent
a change following the creation of the intermediate post of Warrant
officer, persons holding the post of Havildar would be considered
for promotion to the post of Warrant Officer – Service Law.
Respondents were appointed between 1982 and 1989 on
the post of Rifleman in Assam Rifles. At the relevant point of
time they were working as Havildars. Under the Rules, as they
existed earlier, the promotional avenue for a Havildar lay to the
[2019] 1 S.C.R. 982
982
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
983
post of Naib Subedar. In 2011, Union of India introduced an
intermediate rank of Warrant officer by the abolition/upgradation
of one post of Havildar.  In terms of the new Recruitment Rules
i.e. Assam Rifles Warrant Officer (General Duty) Group ‘C’
combatised Posts Recruitment Rules, 2012, the post of Warrant
Officer was created which was required to be filled up by
promotion amongst members of the Assam Rifles holding the
rank of Havildar. Consequent to which, promotion orders were
issued for Havildars to the newly created post of Warrant Officer.
Writ proceedings were instituted. The High Court allowed the
writ petition and held that vacancies which arose prior to the
amendment of the Recruitment Rules would necessarily be
governed by the Rules which existed at the time of the occurrence
of the vacancies. Hence, present Appeals.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.  It is well-settled that there is no vested right to
promotion, but a right be considered for promotion in accordance
with the Rules which prevail on the date on which consideration
for promotion takes place.  This Court has held that there is no
rule of universal application to the effect that vacancies must
necessarily be filled in on the basis of the law which existed on
the date when they arose.  The decision of this Court in Y.V.
Rangaiah vs. Sreenivasa Rao has been construed in subsequent
decisions as a case where the applicable Rules required the
process of promotion or selection to be completed within a
stipulated time frame.  Hence, it has been held in H.S. Grewal vs.
Union of India that the creation of an intermediate post would
not amount to an interference with the vested right to promotion.
[Para 11][987-F-H; 988-A]
2.  Once the structure of Assam Rifles underwent a change
following the creation of the intermediate post of Warrant Officer,
persons holding the post of Havildar would be considered for
promotion to the post of Warrant Officer.  The intermediate post
of Warrant Officer was created as a result of the restructuring
exercise.  The High Court was in error in postulating that
vacancies which arose prior to the amendment of the Recruitment
Rules would necessarily be governed by the Rules which existed
UNION OF INDIA v. KRISHNA KUMAR
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
984
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 1 S.C.R.
at the time of the occurrence of the vacancies.  As the decided
cases noted earlier indicate, there is no such rule

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