Supreme Court Addresses Promotion Quotas in Central Secretariat Service: Pankaj Kr. Mishra vs. Union of India (2018)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: July 31, 2018

Citation: Civil Appeal No(s). 7407/2018 (Arising from SLP(C) No.10342/2015)

Judges: Kurian Joseph, J., Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.

Can a government body grant promotions retroactively based on a hypothetical calculation of vacancies? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning promotions within the Central Secretariat Service. The core issue revolved around whether certain employees were given undue advantage by being promoted based on vacancies that were projected to have existed in 2003, potentially overlooking the rights of other eligible candidates. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul.

Case Background

The case concerns promotions to the position of Upper Division Clerk (UDC) within the Central Secretariat Clerical Service. The dispute arose from a cadre restructuring in the Central Secretariat Service (CSS), which the respondents claimed led to 2151 vacancies in the UDC cadre in 2003. These vacancies were to be filled using a 75:25 ratio, with 75% through seniority and 25% through a Limited Departmental Competitive Examination.

The appellants argued that there was no cadre restructuring in the Central Secretariat Clerical Service and that they had qualified for the 25% quota for the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination from 2004 onwards. They contended that the contesting respondents, who were junior to them in the UDC cadre, should not receive antedated promotions based on a hypothetical calculation of vacancies from 2003.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The judgment mentions that the High Court’s decision was not interfered with, but the specific details of the High Court proceedings are not provided.

Legal Framework

The judgment refers to the rules governing promotions in the Central Secretariat Service, specifically mentioning the 75:25 ratio for filling vacancies in the UDC cadre. However, the specific rules or sections are not quoted verbatim from the source. The judgment also refers to the settled legal position that even for ad-hoc promotions, qualified and eligible candidates cannot be overlooked.

Arguments

The appellants, represented by Mr. V. Shekhar, argued that:

• ✓ There was no cadre restructuring in the Central Secretariat Clerical Service.
• ✓ They qualified for the 25% Limited Departmental Competitive Examination quota from 2004 onwards.
• ✓ Granting antedated promotions to junior employees based on a hypothetical calculation of vacancies from 2003 is incorrect.
• ✓ Some Lower Division Clerks were promoted to Assistants without the required service as Upper Division Clerks.

The respondents, represented by Ms. V. Mohana, argued that:

• ✓ The cadre restructuring in the CSS led to 2151 vacancies in the UDC cadre in 2003.
• ✓ The promotions were carried out as per the rules and the 75:25 ratio.

The appellants contended that the respondents were given undue advantage by being promoted based on vacancies that were projected to have existed in 2003, potentially overlooking the rights of other eligible candidates. The respondents argued that the promotions were done according to the rules and the 75:25 ratio for filling vacancies.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The crucial issue raised in this appeal pertains to the promotion in 2151 posts in the cadre of Upper Division Clerk (UDC) as on 2003.

Whether any person has been appointed to the cadre of Assistant without the required qualification/experience, as mandated under the Rules at the relevant time.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The judgment refers to the “settled legal position” that even for ad-hoc promotions, qualified and eligible candidates cannot be overlooked. However, no specific cases or legal provisions are cited in the judgment.

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to ensure fairness and adherence to rules in promotions within the Central Secretariat Service. The Court was concerned that some promotions might have been granted without following the proper procedures and that eligible candidates might have been overlooked. The Court’s focus was on ensuring that promotions are done as per rules and that any irregularities are rectified.

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the legal principle that even in ad-hoc promotions, qualified and eligible candidates cannot be overlooked. The Court’s decision to allow the appellants to present evidence of irregular promotions and to direct the Competent Authority to examine such instances indicates a strong emphasis on procedural fairness and compliance with rules.

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Government bodies must ensure that promotions are conducted strictly according to the rules and regulations.
• ✓ Hypothetical calculations of vacancies cannot be the basis for granting antedated promotions, especially if it disadvantages eligible candidates.
• ✓ Even in ad-hoc promotions, qualified and eligible candidates cannot be overlooked.
• ✓ If there are any irregularities in promotions, they should be examined and rectified by the competent authority.

This judgment highlights the importance of following proper procedures in government promotions and ensures that the rights of all eligible candidates are protected. It also sets a precedent that promotions cannot be based on hypothetical calculations and that any irregularities should be rectified.

Directions

The Court directed the Competent Authority to examine instances of promotions granted contrary to Rules, within a period of two months from the date of the judgment. The Competent Authority is also directed to take appropriate remedial steps to ensure that the promotions are done only as per Rules. The appellants concerned or any other affected party shall also be given an opportunity of hearing in the process. The needful, as above, will be done within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the representation.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that promotions in government services must be conducted strictly according to the rules and that hypothetical calculations of vacancies cannot be the basis for granting antedated promotions. The judgment reinforces the principle that even in ad-hoc promotions, qualified and eligible candidates cannot be overlooked. This case does not introduce any new legal principle but rather reinforces existing principles of service law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal by directing the Competent Authority to examine instances of promotions granted contrary to Rules and to take remedial steps. The Court emphasized the need for fairness and adherence to rules in promotions, ensuring that eligible candidates are not overlooked. The judgment serves as a reminder that government bodies must follow proper procedures in promotions and that any irregularities should be rectified.