1995 (1) TMI 311 - SC - Indian Laws

Promotion considering proviso to Rule 11A of Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules, 1985 - Held that - SLP dismissed. Tribunal and the High Court, were right in holding that the cases of respondents require to be considered for promotion in the light of the interpretation given by them.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Rule 11-A of Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules, 1985 regarding promotion criteria and application of the proviso.

Analysis:
The case involved senior clerks from Scheduled Tribes seeking promotion benefits under the proviso to Rule 11A of the Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules, 1985. The Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal and the High Court directed the petitioner to consider their cases for promotion with the proviso's benefit. The petitioner contended that the interpretation rendered the main part of Rule 11-A redundant, but the Supreme Court disagreed. The Court analyzed Rule 11-A(2) which prescribes minimum service for promotion and the proviso allowing relaxation under certain conditions. The proviso permits the appointing authority to promote a person with at least 2/3rd of the required experience if the candidate fulfilling the full experience is unavailable, in the public interest. The Court emphasized harmonious interpretation of the main rule and the proviso to achieve the rule's objective. It noted that the appointing authority failed to exercise power under the proviso, resulting in unfilled posts for Scheduled Tribes due to lack of candidates meeting the full experience criteria. The Court affirmed the Tribunal and High Court's decision to consider the respondents for promotion based on the interpretation of the proviso.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, upholding the Tribunal and High Court's decision to consider the respondents for promotion under the proviso to Rule 11-A. The judgment clarified the application of the proviso in cases where candidates with 2/3rd of the required experience are available, emphasizing the need for a balanced interpretation of the main rule and the proviso to fulfill the rule's purpose effectively.