9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the service rule requiring 8 years of approved service as Section Officer for promotion to Grade I Post in Central Secretariat Service is arbitrary and contravenes Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Arbitrariness and Contravention of Articles 14 and 16: The appellants challenged the vires of the proviso to sub-rule 2 of Rule 12 of the Central Secretariat Service (C.S.S.) Rules, 1962, as amended by Notification No. 5/8/80-CS. I dated December 29, 1984. The appellants contended that the rule requiring 8 years of approved service as Section Officer for eligibility for promotion to Grade I Post in C.S.S. was arbitrary and violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. They argued that this condition had no nexus to suitability for promotion and unfairly excluded direct recruits from the zone of consideration while their juniors, i.e., promotee Section Officers, were eligible for promotion. The appellants highlighted that prior to the 1978 amendment, direct recruits with 3-4 years of service had been promoted to Grade I and had performed their duties efficiently. They argued that the 1984 amendment, which increased the required service period to 8 years, was arbitrary and inequitable, lacking any rationale and working to the serious prejudice of direct recruits. 2. Validity of the Quota-Rota Rule: The appellants referred to the Supreme Court's decision in H.V. Pardasani and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., which upheld the validity of the quota-rota rule for determining seniority between direct recruits and promotees. They contended that the 1984 amendment to sub-rule 2 of Rule 12 was unjust and arbitrary as it excluded direct recruits from the zone of consideration for promotion, despite their seniority over promotees. 3. Competence of Rule-Making Authority: The Court held that the rule-making authority is competent to frame rules laying down eligibility conditions for promotion to higher posts. The 1984 amendment, which required 8 years of approved service as Section Officer for eligibility for promotion to Grade I, was found to be neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. The Court emphasized that experience over a certain number of years in service is relevant for suitability for promotion, and the rule treated all Section Officers equally, without discrimination. The Court noted that the rule prescribed an eligibility condition that applied uniformly to both direct recruits and promotees, and seniority alone did not entitle a public servant to promotion unless the eligibility condition was fulfilled. The Tribunal's findings that academic excellence alone is not sufficient for promotion and that experience gained in service is crucial were upheld. Conclusion: The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, holding that the third proviso to sub-rule 2 of Rule 12 of the Central Secretariat Service Rules, 1962, as amended by the 1984 Notification, was not ultra vires of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The appeals were dismissed without costs. Appeals dismissed.
|
