1988 (9) TMI 344 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of amended Special Rules to vacancies arising before the amendment.
2. Legality of direct recruitment against temporary vacancies post-amendment.

Summary:

Issue 1: Applicability of Amended Special Rules to Vacancies Arising Before the Amendment
The core issue was whether the amendment to the Special Rules on 28.4.1980 applied to vacancies that arose before the amendment date. The Tribunal held that the amendment applied to all vacancies, irrespective of when they arose. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the amendment's language, specifically the word "arising," indicated it applied only to vacancies occurring after the amendment date. The Court referenced the case of Eramma v. Verrupanna & Ors., [1966] 2 S.C.R. 626, to support its interpretation. The Court concluded that the amendment did not affect vacancies that arose before 28.4.1980, thus allowing the State Government to fill 37-1/2 per cent of the total vacancies (both substantive and temporary) by direct recruitment as per the rules in force before the amendment.

Issue 2: Legality of Direct Recruitment Against Temporary Vacancies Post-Amendment
The Tribunal had directed the State Government to refrain from making any direct recruitment against temporary vacancies based on the amended Special Rules. The Supreme Court found this direction unsustainable. The Court emphasized that the amendment did not retroactively apply to vacancies that arose before its enactment. Therefore, the State Government's decision to fill 51 vacancies by direct recruitment, based on the pre-amendment rules, was valid. The Court remanded the case to the Tribunal to address other contentions raised by the petitioners, which were not decided due to the Tribunal's initial ruling.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment, holding that the amendment to the Special Rules on 28.4.1980 did not apply to vacancies that arose before that date. The case was remanded to the Tribunal for further consideration of other issues raised by the petitioners. The appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs.