2023 (9) TMI 1503 - SC - Indian Laws

Rejection of representation and the promotion order of the incumbent juniors - Validity of Rule 4(b) of Ministry of Information Technology Rules, 1998 - whether the High Court was justified in exercising jurisdiction to declare Rule 4(b) as ultra vires? - HELD THAT - It is a trite law that for striking down the provisions of law or for declaring any Rules as ultra vires, specific pleading to challenge the Rules and asking of such relief ought to be made, that is conspicuously missing in the present case. In the absence of such a pleading, the Union of India did not have an opportunity to rebut the same. The other side had no opportunity to bring on record the object, if any, behind the Rules that were brought into force. In the writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari challenging the order of the CAT, the High Court ought not to have declared Rule 4(b) as ultra vires in the above fact situation. Therefore, the High Court was not justified to declare Rule 4(b) as ultra vires. The order dated 26.09.2008 of the High Court declaring Rule 4(b) of the Rules is set aside. Since the declaration of the High Court holding Rule 4(b) is set aside to be invalid consequently, the grievance of the Respondent No. 1 about any illegality in denial of promotion to her also does not arise. No case has been made out as to how in the event of Rule 4(b) being valid, how the denial of promotion to her was unjustified for in the years 1999, 2000 and for the years before 2007. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to judgment of High Court in Writ Petition
2. Validity of Rule 4(b) of Ministry of Information Technology Rules, 1998
3. Promotion policy under Flexible Complementing Scheme
4. Denial of promotion to Respondent No. 1
5. Jurisdiction of High Court to declare Rule 4(b) ultra vires

Analysis:

1. Challenge to High Court Judgment: The appeal was filed challenging the High Court's judgment dated 26.09.2008 in Writ Petition (C) No. 7080 of 2005. The High Court had allowed the writ petition and issued directions superseding those issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Cuttack. The Respondent No. 1 had challenged the order of the Tribunal regarding promotion.

2. Validity of Rule 4(b): The High Court declared Rule 4(b) of the Ministry of Information Technology Rules, 1998 as invalid, citing it as excessive in determining promotion criteria. The Court directed the Union of India to make necessary amendments to bring it in line with Supreme Court guidelines.

3. Promotion Policy: The promotion policy under the Flexible Complementing Scheme was to consider both marks secured on ACRs and in interviews. The Court directed that promotions should be based on combined performance in both aspects.

4. Denial of Promotion: The Respondent No. 1 had filed a writ petition seeking promotion from Scientist 'D' to 'E' w.e.f. 01.01.2001. The High Court's order set aside the CAT's decision but did not challenge Rule 4(b) validity in the original application, leading to the High Court's declaration being set aside.

5. Jurisdiction of High Court: The High Court's declaration of Rule 4(b) as ultra vires was set aside as there was no challenge to the rule in the original application or the writ petition. The Court emphasized the importance of specific pleading to challenge rules and seeking appropriate relief.

This detailed analysis covers the key issues involved in the legal judgment, providing a comprehensive understanding of the case and the Court's decisions.