Date of the Judgment: May 10, 2019
Citation: Girish Kumar vs. State of Maharashtra and others, Civil Appeal No. 4894 of 2019, (Arising from SLP (C) No. 2784 of 2011)
Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., M.R. Shah, J.
Can an employee be promoted to a higher position if they haven’t actually worked for the required continuous period in the feeder cadre, even if they were granted a deemed date of promotion? This was the core question before the Supreme Court in the case of Girish Kumar vs. State of Maharashtra. The court had to determine whether “continuous service” as required by recruitment rules could be satisfied by a deemed date of promotion granted under seniority rules. The Supreme Court held that for promotion, actual continuous service is required, and a deemed date of promotion for seniority purposes does not satisfy the eligibility criteria for promotion. The judgment was authored by Justice M.R. Shah.
Case Background
Girish Kumar, the appellant, was initially appointed as a Senior Assistant on June 26, 2001. He was later promoted to Office Superintendent effective from October 7, 2005, by order dated October 12, 2007. Govind Jerale, who was appointed as a Junior Assistant on September 8, 1994, was promoted to Senior Assistant on November 6, 1999. Respondent No. 3 was appointed as a Junior Assistant on August 29, 1994. He was suspended sometime in 1999, but was reinstated on July 17, 2001, and exonerated in a departmental enquiry on June 15, 2006. Subsequently, he was promoted as Senior Assistant on July 1, 2006. Considering Rule 5 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1982, Respondent No. 3 was granted November 6, 1999, as the deemed date of promotion as Senior Assistant, the same date his junior was promoted. He was later promoted to Office Superintendent on October 22, 2007, with a deemed date of promotion as October 7, 2005. Due to his higher position in the seniority list, he was promoted as Section Officer on February 1, 2008.
The appellant challenged the promotion of Respondent No. 3 to Section Officer, arguing that he did not meet the eligibility criteria of three years of continuous service as Office Superintendent as per the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads District Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1967. The Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, initially sided with the appellant, but this decision was overturned by the High Court. The High Court’s decision was then challenged in the Supreme Court.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| August 29, 1994 | Respondent No. 3 appointed as Junior Assistant. |
| September 8, 1994 | Govind Jerale appointed as Junior Assistant. |
| 1999 | Respondent No. 3 suspended from service. |
| November 6, 1999 | Govind Jerale promoted to Senior Assistant. |
| July 17, 2001 | Respondent No. 3 reinstated. |
| June 26, 2001 | Girish Kumar appointed as Senior Assistant. |
| June 15, 2006 | Respondent No. 3 exonerated in departmental inquiry. |
| July 1, 2006 | Respondent No. 3 promoted to Senior Assistant. |
| October 7, 2005 | Deemed date of promotion of Respondent No. 3 as Office Superintendent. |
| October 12, 2007 | Girish Kumar promoted to Office Superintendent. |
| October 22, 2007 | Respondent No. 3 promoted to Office Superintendent. |
| February 1, 2008 | Respondent No. 3 promoted to Section Officer. |
| November 5, 2008 | Appellant filed appeal before the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad. |
| May 20, 2010 | Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, allowed the appeal and set aside the promotion of Respondent No. 3. |
| June 29, 2010 | High Court allowed the writ petition of Respondent No. 3 and set aside the order of the Additional Divisional Commissioner. |
| December 20, 2010 | Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal of the Appellant. |
| May 10, 2019 | Supreme Court judgment. |
Course of Proceedings
The appellant initially filed a writ petition in the High Court, which was disposed of with the liberty to approach the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad. The Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, allowed the appeal of the appellant on May 20, 2010, and set aside the promotion of Respondent No. 3 to the post of Section Officer. Aggrieved by the order of the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Respondent No. 3 filed a writ petition before the High Court. A single judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition on June 29, 2010, setting aside the order of the Additional Divisional Commissioner and confirming the promotion of Respondent No. 3. The appellant then filed a Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court, which was dismissed on December 20, 2010, upholding the single judge’s decision. This led to the appeal before the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The case revolves around the interpretation of two key sets of rules:
1. The Maharashtra Zilla Parishads District Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1967: These rules, framed under Section 274 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samities Act, 1961, govern the recruitment and promotion of employees in the District Services. Appendix IX of these rules specifies the eligibility criteria for promotion to the post of Section Officer, which requires “service for a continuous period of not less than three years in District Service (Class III) (Ministerial) Grade II.”
2. The Maharashtra Civil Services (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1982: These rules, framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, govern the seniority of government servants. Rule 5 of these rules allows for granting a deemed date of promotion to an employee who was eligible for promotion but was not promoted due to administrative reasons or other factors.
The Supreme Court noted that while the Seniority Rules, 1982, govern seniority, the Recruitment Rules, 1967, govern the eligibility criteria for promotion. The Court emphasized that the two rules operate in different fields.
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments:
- The appellant argued that the High Court erred in relying solely on the Seniority Rules, 1982, and ignoring the requirements of the Recruitment Rules, 1967.
- The appellant contended that the Seniority Rules, 1982, apply only to seniority and not to recruitment. The Recruitment Rules, 1967, specifically require three years of continuous service in the feeder cadre for promotion to Section Officer.
- The appellant submitted that Respondent No. 3 did not complete three years of continuous service in the District Service (Class III) (Ministerial) Grade II, as he was actually promoted as Office Superintendent on October 22, 2007, and therefore was not eligible for promotion to Section Officer.
- The appellant asserted that the term “continuous service” means uninterrupted service, and a deemed date of promotion does not satisfy this requirement.
- The appellant argued that the language of the Recruitment Rules, 1967, is plain and simple, requiring actual completion of three years of continuous service in the feeder cadre, and the High Court should not have added the word “actual” before “service”.
Respondent No. 3’s Arguments:
- Respondent No. 3 argued that he was granted a deemed date of promotion to Office Superintendent with effect from October 7, 2005, and therefore, his service should be counted from that date.
- Respondent No. 3 contended that the appellant did not challenge his deemed date of promotion as Senior Assistant, and its consequences must follow.
- Respondent No. 3 submitted that the term “continuous service” is not defined in the Recruitment Rules, 1967, and the Maharashtra Civil Services Rules apply to Zilla Parishad employees.
- Respondent No. 3 argued that the Seniority Rules, 1982, define “continuous service” to include service from a deemed date of appointment.
- Respondent No. 3 asserted that the Recruitment Rules, 1967, do not use the words “actual service” or “actual experience” before “continuous service,” and thus, a deemed date of promotion should be considered sufficient.
- Respondent No. 3 argued that accepting the appellant’s interpretation would lead to an absurd result, making the Seniority Rules, 1982, unworkable.
- Respondent No. 3 submitted that the view taken by the High Court was a possible view and that the Supreme Court should not interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions by Appellant | Sub-Submissions by Respondent No. 3 |
|---|---|---|
| Interpretation of Service Rules |
|
|
| Meaning of “Continuous Service” |
|
|
| Eligibility for Promotion |
|
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:
- Whether an employee who has been assigned the deemed date of promotion as per Rule 5 of the Seniority Rules, 1982, and as such has not actually worked at all on the promotional post, can it be said that he has completed service for a continuous period of not less than three years in the feeder cadre, which is the requirement under the relevant Recruitment Rules?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether a deemed date of promotion satisfies the requirement of “continuous service” for promotion under the Recruitment Rules, 1967? | No | The court held that the Seniority Rules, 1982 and the Recruitment Rules, 1967, operate in different fields. The Seniority Rules govern seniority, while the Recruitment Rules govern eligibility for promotion. The term “continuous service” in the Recruitment Rules, 1967, means uninterrupted service, and a deemed date of promotion does not satisfy this requirement. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities and legal provisions:
| Authority | Court | How Considered | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| Maharashtra Zilla Parishads District Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1967 | – | Interpreted | Eligibility criteria for promotion to the post of Section Officer. |
| Maharashtra Civil Services (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1982 | – | Interpreted | Rules for determining seniority and granting deemed dates of promotion. |
| Section 274 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samities Act, 1961 | – | Cited | Power to make rules for recruitment to district services. |
| Article 309 of the Constitution of India | – | Cited | Power to make rules for regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of persons serving under the State. |
| Black’s Law Dictionary | – | Definition of “continuous” relied upon. | Definition of the term “continuous”. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How Treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s submission that the High Court erred in relying solely on the Seniority Rules, 1982, and ignoring the Recruitment Rules, 1967. | Accepted. The Court held that the High Court failed to consider the distinction between the two sets of rules. |
| Appellant’s submission that the term “continuous service” means uninterrupted service and a deemed date of promotion does not satisfy this requirement. | Accepted. The Court agreed that “continuous service” requires actual service and a deemed date of promotion is not sufficient. |
| Respondent No. 3’s submission that his deemed date of promotion should be considered for calculating continuous service. | Rejected. The Court held that the deemed date of promotion is only for seniority purposes and not for eligibility for promotion. |
| Respondent No. 3’s submission that the term “continuous service” was not defined in the Recruitment Rules, 1967 and therefore the definition in the Seniority Rules, 1982 should be considered. | Rejected. The Court stated that the ordinary dictionary meaning of “continuous” should be considered. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court:
The Supreme Court interpreted the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads District Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1967 to mean that the eligibility criteria for promotion to the post of Section Officer requires actual service for a continuous period of not less than three years in the feeder cadre. The Court held that the Maharashtra Civil Services (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1982 govern seniority and the deemed date of promotion is only for seniority purposes and not for eligibility for promotion. The Court also relied on the definition of “continuous” from Black’s Law Dictionary to mean “uninterrupted or unbroken.”
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to maintain a clear distinction between rules governing seniority and those governing eligibility for promotion. The Court emphasized that the Recruitment Rules, 1967, which are specific to the post of Section Officer, require actual continuous service. Granting promotion based on a deemed date of promotion would undermine the purpose of the Recruitment Rules, which are designed to ensure that candidates have the necessary experience and expertise for the higher post. The Court also highlighted the plain and simple language used in the Recruitment Rules, stating that it should be interpreted as it is without adding or subtracting from it.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Importance of actual service as per Recruitment Rules | 40% |
| Distinction between Seniority and Recruitment Rules | 30% |
| Plain and simple language of the rules | 20% |
| Ordinary dictionary meaning of “continuous” | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
Logical Reasoning
The Court considered the alternative interpretation that a deemed date of promotion under the Seniority Rules, 1982, could satisfy the “continuous service” requirement in the Recruitment Rules, 1967. However, this interpretation was rejected because it would blur the distinction between the two sets of rules, and undermine the purpose of having specific eligibility criteria for promotion. The Court concluded that the plain meaning of “continuous service” as “uninterrupted” must be followed, and a deemed date of promotion does not equate to actual service.
The Supreme Court held that for promotion to the post of Section Officer, an employee must have actually completed three years of continuous service in the feeder cadre. A deemed date of promotion granted under the Seniority Rules, 1982, is relevant only for seniority purposes and does not fulfill the eligibility criteria for promotion. The Court emphasized that the two sets of rules operate in different fields and should not be conflated.
The Court observed that “The language used in Appendix IX is unambiguous, simple and plain.” It further stated, “Therefore, on a fair reading of Appendix IX of the Recruitment Rules, 1967, to become eligible for the promotional post of Section Officer, a person ought to have rendered continuous service of not less than three years.” The Court also noted that, “In the Recruitment Rules, ‘continuous service’ is not defined. Therefore, one has to consider the ordinary dictionary meaning of ‘continuous’ which means ‘uninterrupted or unbroken’.”
There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The judgment was delivered by a bench of two judges.
The Court’s decision has significant implications for future cases involving promotions and seniority. It clarifies that eligibility criteria for promotion, as specified in recruitment rules, must be strictly adhered to, and cannot be circumvented by deemed dates of promotion granted under seniority rules.
Key Takeaways
- Actual continuous service, not just a deemed date of promotion, is required to meet eligibility criteria for promotion.
- Seniority Rules and Recruitment Rules operate in different fields and should not be conflated.
- Plain and simple language of rules must be interpreted as it is, without adding or subtracting from it.
- Deemed dates of promotion are only for seniority purposes and not for eligibility for promotion.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that Respondent No. 3 is not entitled to be promoted to the post of Section Officer and instead, action should be taken to promote the appellant to the post of Section Officer, as directed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the term “continuous service” in the context of promotion requires actual, uninterrupted service in the feeder cadre, and a deemed date of promotion granted for seniority purposes does not satisfy this requirement. This ruling clarifies the distinction between seniority and eligibility for promotion, and it establishes that eligibility criteria in recruitment rules must be strictly adhered to. This decision reinforces the principle that promotion should be based on actual experience and performance in the feeder cadre, rather than simply on seniority or deemed dates of promotion.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Girish Kumar vs. State of Maharashtra clarifies the interpretation of “continuous service” in the context of promotions. The Court held that a deemed date of promotion under seniority rules does not satisfy the requirement of continuous service as required by recruitment rules for eligibility for promotion. This ruling ensures that promotions are based on actual experience and service in the feeder cadre, maintaining the integrity of the recruitment process.