2011 (4) TMI 1525 - SC - Indian Laws

Challenged the Recruitment Rules 2005 as well as the letters - Promotion to the post of Raj Bhasha Adhikari AD(OL) - HELD THAT - It was pointed out by learned Counsel for the Appellants that the impugned Raj Bhasha Adhikari Recruitment Rules 2005 were quashed by the High Court without service of any notice of the writ petition on the Appellants (Respondents 3 to 6 in the writ petition) and that too at the preliminary stage of admission on the basis of an alleged submission of a counsel who did not have any authority and Vaklatnama in his favour by the Appellants and who had not been given any instruction to appear on their behalf. We agree with this submission. When rules are challenged it is necessary to have the matter gone into in depth by inviting a counter affidavit and examining the matter in detail. A summary disposal of a writ petition by allowing it without even calling for a counter affidavit and quashing the rules, in our opinion, is totally against any established procedure of law. This is evident from the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Chairman, Railway Board v. C.R. Rangadhamaiah 1997 (7) TMI 662 - SUPREME COURT . It was held therein that pension is no longer treated as a bounty but was a valuable Constitutional right under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(1) of the Constitution, which were available on 1.1.1973 and 1.4.1974 (that is before the 44th Constitution Amendment). Since this was a Constitutional right it could not be taken away by amendment of the rules. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and hence a Constitutional right can only be taken away by amending the Constitution, not by amending the rules or even by amending the statute. We are of the opinion that the above observations are not sustainable. When Rules are framed under Article 309 of the Constitution, no undertaking need be given to anybody and the Rules can be changed at any time. For instance, if the retirement age is fixed by rules framed under Article 309, that can be changed subsequently by an amendment even in respect of employees appointed before the amendment. Hence, we cannot accept the view taken by the High Court. There is no question of equity in this case because it is well settled that law prevails over equity if there is a conflict. Equity can only supplement the law, and not supplant it. As the Latin maxim states Dura lex sed lex ' which means The law is hard, but it is the law . The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court is set aside.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Recruitment Rules 2005 and Limited Internal Competitive Examination for promotion to the post of Raj Bhasha Adhikari AD(OL).

Analysis:
1. The Respondents filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the Recruitment Rules 2005 and the Limited Internal Competitive Examination for promotion. The High Court allowed the writ petition, which led to the appeal.

2. The Appellants argued that the impugned Rules were quashed without proper notice or examination. The Supreme Court agreed, emphasizing the need for a thorough review before quashing Rules.

3. The Recruitment Rules aimed to promote the use of Hindi in official communications. The Rules were revised in 2005, changing the mode of recruitment to a Limited Internal Competitive Examination, which was challenged by the Respondents.

4. The Respondents were not regularly promoted under previous Rules and were appointed on an officiating basis. The change in recruitment policy was found to be legal by the Supreme Court.

5. The Supreme Court clarified that Rules under Article 309 can be changed even during the existence of old Rules. The Court emphasized the legislative nature of such Rules.

6. The High Court's observation regarding the old Rules not being changed for three years was deemed unsustainable by the Supreme Court. The Court highlighted that Rules under Article 309 can be amended at any time without prior undertakings.

7. The Supreme Court held that law prevails over equity in conflicts, emphasizing the importance of legal provisions over equitable considerations.

8. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court's judgment. No costs were awarded in the matter.

9. A subsequent appeal was allowed based on the decision in the first appeal, leading to the setting aside of the High Court's judgment without costs.