1994 (7) TMI 371 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of promotions under the reservation policy.
2. Retrospective amendment of Rule 13.
3. Vested rights of general category candidates.
4. Applicability of government instructions on promotions.
5. Consideration of senior officers for promotion.

Summary:

1. Validity of Promotions under the Reservation Policy:
The respondents, members of the Indian Statistical Service (ISS), were promoted from Grade IV to Grade III against vacancies reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Mohanty, a general category officer senior to the respondents, challenged these promotions before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, on the grounds that the rules did not permit reservations in promotions. The Tribunal ruled in favor of Mohanty, deeming the promotions against the rules but did not disturb the promotions already given. Instead, it directed that Mohanty be deemed promoted from the same date and placed above the respondents in the seniority list.

2. Retrospective Amendment of Rule 13:
The ISS Rules were amended with retrospective effect from November 27, 1972, to include reservations for SCs and STs in promotions. The Union of India contended that this retrospective amendment validated the promotions of the respondents. However, Mohanty and other general category members challenged the validity of this retrospective amendment.

3. Vested Rights of General Category Candidates:
The Court held that Mohanty and other senior general category officers had a vested right to be considered for promotion when their juniors were being promoted. This right was protected under Rule 8(1)(b)(i) and Article 16(1) of the Constitution. The retrospective amendment of Rule 13 was deemed to take away these vested rights, which is not permissible under the law.

4. Applicability of Government Instructions on Promotions:
The government instructions dated November 27, 1972, provided for reservations in promotions based on "seniority subject to fitness." However, Rule 8(1)(b)(i) required promotions to be made in the order of seniority subject to rejection of the unfit. The Court found that the instructions meant for promotions based on "seniority subject to fitness" could not be applied to promotions based on "seniority subject to rejection of the unfit."

5. Consideration of Senior Officers for Promotion:
The proviso to Rule 8(1)(b)(i) mandates that if a junior officer is considered for promotion, all senior officers must also be considered. The Court emphasized that this statutory right could not be nullified by retrospective legislation.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court declared the retrospective operation of the amended Rule 13 to be unreasonable, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The retrospective amendment was struck down, and the appeal by the Union of India was dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000 to be paid to Mohanty.