LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the qualification of graduation, prescribed for promotion to the post of Accounts Officer, is also necessary for granting the benefit of Assured Career Progression (ACP).
CASE TYPE: Service Law
Case Name: Amresh Kumar Sinha & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Judgment Date: 25 April 2023
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 25 April 2023
Citation: Civil Appeal Nos. of 2023 (Arising out of SLP(C)NOs.8219-8226 of 2019)
Judges: B.R. Gavai, J., Pankaj Mithal, J.
Can employees be denied the benefits of Assured Career Progression (ACP) solely because they lack the educational qualifications required for a higher promotional post? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a service law matter, clarifying the eligibility criteria for ACP benefits. The core issue was whether the requirement of a graduation degree for promotion to Accounts Officer should also apply to the grant of ACP to Accounts Clerks. The Supreme Court, in this judgment, held that the educational qualification for promotion to a higher post is not necessary for granting ACP. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Pankaj Mithal, with the opinion authored by Justice Pankaj Mithal.
Case Background
The appellants were initially appointed as Accounts Clerks, a position that required a minimum qualification of intermediate education. Prior to 1980, there were separate cadres for Junior and Senior Accounts Clerks. These cadres were merged on May 1, 1980, creating a common cadre of Accounts Clerks. In 1999, the cadres were demerged, and the clerks were retained in their respective cadres without any promotional avenues.
Seeking to avoid stagnation, the appellants filed writ petitions, requesting the benefit of Assured Career Progression (ACP) upon completing 12 years of service. The ACP scheme is designed to provide financial benefits to employees who do not get promotions due to lack of promotional opportunities.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Prior to 1980 | Separate cadres for Junior and Senior Accounts Clerks existed. |
| May 1, 1980 | Cadres of Junior and Senior Accounts Clerks merged, creating a common cadre of Accounts Clerks. |
| 1999 | Demerger of the cadre took place, with clerks retained in their respective cadres without promotional avenues. |
| 28 November 2017 | Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petitions, extending ACP benefits to the appellants. |
| 5 February 2019 | Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the Single Judge’s order. |
| 25 April 2023 | Supreme Court allowed the appeals, restoring the Single Judge’s order and extending ACP benefits to the appellants. |
Course of Proceedings
The appellants initially approached the High Court of Judicature at Patna through writ petitions, seeking the benefit of the ACP scheme. The single judge, relying on earlier decisions of the High Court in CWJC Nos.18015/2011 Pramod Kumar vs. The State of Bihar and Others and 16346/2011 Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors, allowed the petitions and extended the benefit of ACP to the appellants.
However, the Division Bench of the High Court, in appeals filed by the State of Bihar, reversed the single judge’s decision. The Division Bench held that the qualification of graduation was a mandatory requirement for grant of ACP and since the appellants did not possess this qualification, they were not entitled to ACP benefits.
The appellants then approached the Supreme Court of India challenging the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court.
Legal Framework
The case revolves around the interpretation of the Bihar Accounts Service Rules, 2000, and the Bihar State Employees Service Condition (Assured Career Progression Scheme) Rules, 2003.
✓ Rule 17 and 20 of the Bihar Accounts Service Rules, 2000, read with Schedule I, provide for promotion to the Bihar Accounts Service. Rule 17 specifies that candidates must possess the qualifications mentioned in Schedule I for promotion. Schedule I stipulates that the minimum educational qualification for promotion to the Bihar Accounts Service is graduation.
✓ Rule 4(5) of the Bihar State Employees Service Condition (Assured Career Progression Scheme) Rules, 2003, states that if the rules prescribe passing a departmental examination or any qualification for promotion, that shall also be an essential condition for sanction of benefit under the ACP scheme.
The State of Bihar contended that, based on these rules, the minimum educational qualification of graduation is necessary for the grant of ACP.
Arguments
The appellants argued that the ACP scheme is meant to avoid stagnation and provide financial benefits to employees who do not get promotional opportunities. They contended that the educational qualification required for promotion to the post of Accounts Officer should not be a prerequisite for the grant of ACP, which is a non-functional in-situ promotion.
The State of Bihar argued that the rules clearly mandate that the qualification of graduation is essential for promotion to the Bihar Accounts Service, and this qualification is also necessary for the grant of ACP. They emphasized that Rule 4(5) of the 2003 Rules makes it clear that any qualification prescribed for promotion is also essential for the ACP scheme.
| Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Appellants’ Arguments |
|
| State of Bihar’s Arguments |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:
- Whether the qualification of graduation prescribed for promotion to the next higher post of Accounts Officer from that of Accounts Clerk is necessary even for the purpose of extending the benefit of ACP.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision and Reasoning |
|---|---|
| Whether graduation is necessary for ACP? | The Court held that graduation is not necessary for ACP. The Court reasoned that ACP is a financial upgradation to avoid stagnation, not an actual promotion. Insisting on higher qualifications would defeat the purpose of the scheme. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How Considered | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| Union of India & Others Vs. C.R. Madhava Murthy & Anr. (2022) 6 SCC 183 | Supreme Court of India | Followed | The object of ACP/MACP is to relieve frustration due to stagnation and provide monetary benefits without actual promotion. |
| Union of India and Anr. Vs. G.Ranjanna and Ors. (2008) 14 SCC 721 | Supreme Court of India | Followed | Educational qualifications for promotion are not necessary for non-functional in-situ promotions. |
| Bihar Accounts Service Rules, 2000, Rule 17, 20 and Schedule I | Bihar State | Interpreted | Prescribes graduation for promotion to Bihar Accounts Service. |
| Bihar State Employees Service Condition (Assured Career Progression Scheme) Rules, 2003, Rule 4(5) | Bihar State | Interpreted | Essential qualifications for promotion are also essential for ACP. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How the Court Treated the Submission |
|---|---|
| Appellants’ submission that ACP is for avoiding stagnation and is a financial benefit, not a promotion. | The Court agreed with this submission, emphasizing that ACP is a financial upgrade and not an actual promotion. |
| State of Bihar’s submission that graduation is a necessary qualification for ACP as per the rules. | The Court rejected this submission, holding that the qualification for promotion is not required for ACP, which is a non-functional in-situ promotion. |
The Supreme Court held that the educational qualification of graduation, prescribed for promotion to the post of Accounts Officer, is not necessary for granting the benefit of ACP. The Court emphasized that ACP is a scheme designed to provide financial upgradation to employees who do not get promotional avenues.
The Court relied on its earlier judgments, particularly Union of India and Anr. Vs. G.Ranjanna and Ors. [2008] 14 SCC 721, where it was held that educational qualifications prescribed for promotion are not necessary for non-functional in-situ promotions. The Court reiterated that the object of ACP is to remove stagnation and provide monetary benefits without actual promotion.
The Court observed, “The grant of ACP is not technically a grant of promotion but increase in the pay scale to the next higher grade retaining the employee on the post held by him.”
The Court also noted, “The benefit of the ACP as such is like granting non-functional in situ promotion.”
Further, the Court stated, “The effect of the schemes must be judged keeping in view the object and the purport of the scheme.”
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the understanding that the Assured Career Progression (ACP) scheme is fundamentally designed to address stagnation among employees who lack promotional avenues. The Court emphasized that ACP is not a promotion but rather a financial upgrade to the next higher pay scale, without changing the employee’s post or responsibilities.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Focus on the purpose of ACP as a measure to avoid stagnation and provide monetary benefits. | 40% |
| Distinction between ACP as a financial upgrade and actual promotion. | 30% |
| Reliance on previous judgments that held that educational qualifications for promotion are not necessary for in-situ promotions. | 20% |
| Rejection of the State’s argument that educational qualifications for promotion are necessary for ACP. | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 20% |
| Law | 80% |
The Court’s reasoning was heavily influenced by the legal interpretation of the ACP scheme and its precedents, with a smaller emphasis on the specific factual details of the case.
Key Takeaways
- The educational qualification prescribed for promotion to a higher post is not necessary for the grant of ACP.
- ACP is a financial upgradation scheme designed to avoid stagnation and provide monetary benefits to employees who do not get promotional opportunities.
- The purpose of the ACP scheme should be considered while interpreting the rules governing it.
- This judgment clarifies that the benefit of ACP should not be denied to employees solely because they do not possess the educational qualification required for a higher promotional post.
Directions
The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court and restored the judgment of the writ court. The appellants were extended the benefit of ACP as directed by the writ court.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that educational qualifications prescribed for promotion to a higher post are not necessary for the grant of Assured Career Progression (ACP). This judgment reinforces the principle that ACP is a financial upgradation scheme intended to prevent stagnation and provide monetary benefits without actual promotion. It clarifies that the eligibility criteria for ACP should not be conflated with the requirements for actual promotion. This is consistent with previous positions of law, as the court relied on previous judgments to come to this conclusion.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, holding that the appellants were entitled to the benefits of the ACP scheme, irrespective of their lack of graduation qualification. The Court emphasized that the ACP scheme is designed to provide financial benefits to employees who have stagnated in their posts due to a lack of promotional opportunities and that the educational qualifications for promotion to a higher post should not be a prerequisite for the grant of ACP.