2008 (4) TMI 776 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of GOMs No.368 dated 18.8.1999.
2. Validity of the ratio 1:14 for promotion between Private Secretaries (PSs) and Section Officers (SOs).
3. Legality of limiting the number of posts held by PSs to ten.
4. Alleged violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
5. Judicial review of policy decisions.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of GOMs No.368 dated 18.8.1999:
The appeals centered around the interpretation of GOMs No.368, which revised the criteria for promotion from SOs and PSs to higher posts. The government order limited the number of PSs who could be promoted to higher posts to ten at any given time. This was challenged as arbitrary and discriminatory.

2. Validity of the ratio 1:14 for promotion between PSs and SOs:
The Tribunal initially allowed the applications challenging the government orders, holding that the ratio of 1:14 for promotion to the post of Assistant Secretaries was a limiting factor and that further restrictions on the number of posts held by PSs were unwarranted. The High Court, however, upheld the ratio of 14:1, stating that the government was entitled to revise the ratio based on the relative strength of the cadres.

3. Legality of limiting the number of posts held by PSs to ten:
The Tribunal found the limitation of ten posts for PSs to be arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16. The High Court disagreed, stating that the cap was a policy decision and not unconstitutional. However, the Supreme Court held that while the state could fix a quota, it could not cap promotions for the entire service period, as this would violate the constitutional scheme of equality.

4. Alleged violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India:
The Tribunal and the Supreme Court found that limiting the number of posts to ten for PSs was discriminatory and violated Articles 14 and 16. The Supreme Court emphasized that while the state could take policy decisions, these must not infringe on the constitutional rights of employees. The rule was deemed arbitrary as it did not account for future changes in cadre strength and could lead to inequality.

5. Judicial review of policy decisions:
The High Court opined that policy decisions were not subject to judicial review unless they were mala fide. The Supreme Court clarified that policy decisions reflected in subordinate legislation could be reviewed for constitutionality. The Court held that the impugned rules were arbitrary and irrational, thus amenable to judicial review. The cap on promotions was found to be an unreasonable restriction that did not align with the objectives of providing promotional avenues and avoiding stagnation.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the impugned Government Orders, holding that they were arbitrary, discriminatory, and violated Articles 14 and 16. The appeals were allowed with costs assessed at Rs. 25,000. The judgment emphasized the need for rules to be reasonable and in consonance with the constitutional scheme, ensuring equality and fairness in promotional opportunities.