LEGAL ISSUE: Whether promotion rules should be applied based on the date of vacancy or the date when the promotion decision is made.
CASE TYPE: Service Law
Case Name: Rajasthan State Sports Council & Anr. vs. Smt. Uma Dadhich & Anr.
[Judgment Date]: January 21, 2019
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: January 21, 2019
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 883 of 2019 (@ SLP(C) No. 492 of 2017)
Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J. and Hemant Gupta, J.
Can promotion rules be applied retrospectively? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the Rajasthan State Sports Council. The core issue was whether promotions should be governed by the rules in effect when the vacancy arose or by the rules in effect when the promotion decision was made. The Supreme Court clarified the position, setting aside the High Court’s judgment.
The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J. and Hemant Gupta, J. The leading opinion was authored by Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J.
Case Background
Smt. Uma Dadhich, the first respondent, was initially appointed as Coach Grade-III under the Rajasthan State Sports Council on March 20, 1986. She was subsequently promoted to Coach Grade-II on February 22, 1990, and then to Coach Grade-I on January 10, 1997. On February 27, 2009, nine individuals were promoted to the position of Sports Officer from Coach Grade-I.
Smt. Uma Dadhich filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the promotion of the second respondent for vacancies that arose in the year 2003-2004. She argued that the promotions should have been based on the rules applicable at the time the vacancies occurred.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| March 20, 1986 | Smt. Uma Dadhich appointed as Coach Grade-III. |
| February 22, 1990 | Smt. Uma Dadhich promoted to Coach Grade-II. |
| January 10, 1997 | Smt. Uma Dadhich promoted to Coach Grade-I. |
| 2003-2004 | Vacancies for Sports Officer arose. |
| February 27, 2009 | Nine individuals were promoted to Sports Officer. |
| April 1, 2015 | Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Smt. Uma Dadhich. |
| November 23, 2015 | Division Bench of the High Court reversed the Single Judge’s decision. |
| January 21, 2019 | Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s judgment. |
Course of Proceedings
The learned Single Judge of the High Court initially dismissed the writ petition filed by Smt. Uma Dadhich on April 1, 2015. However, on appeal, a Division Bench of the High Court reversed this decision. The Division Bench held that the criteria for promotion, which were changed in 2006, could not be applied to vacancies that occurred before the change. The High Court directed the Sports Council to reconsider Smt. Uma Dadhich’s case for promotion based on the rules applicable in 2003-2004.
Legal Framework
The case revolves around the interpretation of the Rajasthan State Sports Council Service Rules, 2006. Prior to 2006, the criterion for promotion to the post of Sports Officer was seniority. The 2006 Rules introduced a new criterion: seniority-cum-merit and merit.
Rule 9(4) of the Rajasthan State Sports Council Service Rules, 2006 states:
“The appointing authority shall determine the vacancies of earlier years, year wise which were required to be filled in by promotion, if such vacancies were not determined and filled earlier in the year in which they were required to be filled in.”
The Supreme Court noted that the rule does not specify that vacancies must be filled based on the rules prevailing in the year the vacancies occurred.
Arguments
The appellants argued that the respondent had no vested right to promotion, but only a right to be considered for promotion according to the rules in effect when the case for promotion was taken up. They cited several Supreme Court decisions to support this view, including:
- H.S. Grewal Vs. Union of India
- Deepak Agarwal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
- State of Tripura Vs. Nikhil Ranjan Chakraborty
- Union of India & Ors. Vs. Krishna Kumar & Ors.
The appellants contended that the High Court erred in applying the rules of 2003-2004 to the promotions made in 2009.
The respondents argued that the vacancies should be filled based on the rules applicable when the vacancies arose, i.e., in 2003-2004, when the criteria was seniority.
Submissions of Parties
| Main Submission | Sub-Submission | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Applicability of Promotion Rules | Promotions should be based on rules at the time of consideration, not vacancy. | Appellants (Rajasthan State Sports Council) |
| Promotions should be based on rules at the time the vacancy arose. | Respondents (Smt. Uma Dadhich) | |
| Vested Right to Promotion | No vested right to promotion, only right to be considered as per prevailing rules. | Appellants (Rajasthan State Sports Council) |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:
✓ Whether the High Court was correct in holding that the promotion to the post of Sports Officer should be based on the rules applicable at the time the vacancy arose, i.e. 2003-2004?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was correct in holding that the promotion to the post of Sports Officer should be based on the rules applicable at the time the vacancy arose, i.e. 2003-2004? | The Supreme Court held that the High Court was incorrect. The promotion should be based on the rules prevailing when the promotion is considered, not when the vacancy arose. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court relied on the following cases:
- H.S. Grewal Vs. Union of India (1997) 11 SCC 758 – Supreme Court of India
- Deepak Agarwal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2011) 6 SCC 725 – Supreme Court of India
- State of Tripura Vs. Nikhil Ranjan Chakraborty (2017) 3 SCC 646 – Supreme Court of India
- Union of India & Ors. Vs. Krishna Kumar & Ors. CA@SLP(C) No. 26541 of 2014 decided on 14 January 2019 – Supreme Court of India
- Y.V. Rangaiah Vs. Sreenivasa Rao (1983) 3 SCC 284 – Supreme Court of India (Distinguished)
Authorities Considered by the Court
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| H.S. Grewal Vs. Union of India (1997) 11 SCC 758 | Supreme Court of India | Followed to support the principle that there is no vested right to promotion, but only a right to be considered as per rules at the time of consideration. |
| Deepak Agarwal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2011) 6 SCC 725 | Supreme Court of India | Followed to support the principle that there is no vested right to promotion, but only a right to be considered as per rules at the time of consideration. |
| State of Tripura Vs. Nikhil Ranjan Chakraborty (2017) 3 SCC 646 | Supreme Court of India | Followed to support the principle that there is no vested right to promotion, but only a right to be considered as per rules at the time of consideration. |
| Union of India & Ors. Vs. Krishna Kumar & Ors. CA@SLP(C) No. 26541 of 2014 decided on 14 January 2019 | Supreme Court of India | Followed to support the principle that there is no vested right to promotion, but only a right to be considered as per rules at the time of consideration. |
| Y.V. Rangaiah Vs. Sreenivasa Rao (1983) 3 SCC 284 | Supreme Court of India | Distinguished as it dealt with a situation where rules required completion of promotion exercise within a specific year. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Promotions should be based on rules at the time of consideration, not vacancy. | Accepted. The Court held that the rules in effect when the promotion is considered should apply. |
| Promotions should be based on rules at the time the vacancy arose. | Rejected. The Court held that the rules in effect when the promotion is considered should apply. |
| No vested right to promotion, only right to be considered as per prevailing rules. | Accepted. The Court reiterated that there is no vested right to promotion, only a right to be considered as per the rules in effect at the time of consideration. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
The Court relied on the principles laid down in H.S. Grewal Vs. Union of India [CITATION], Deepak Agarwal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [CITATION], State of Tripura Vs. Nikhil Ranjan Chakraborty [CITATION] and Union of India & Ors. Vs. Krishna Kumar & Ors. [CITATION] to reiterate that there is no vested right to promotion, but only a right to be considered in accordance with the rules as they existed on the date when the case for promotion was taken up.
The Court distinguished the judgment in Y.V. Rangaiah Vs. Sreenivasa Rao [CITATION], stating that it dealt with a situation where the rules required that the promotional exercise must be completed within the relevant year.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Court’s reasoning was primarily influenced by the established principle that an employee has no vested right to promotion but only a right to be considered according to the rules in force at the time of consideration. The Court emphasized the importance of applying the rules prevailing at the time the promotion decision is made, rather than the rules in effect when the vacancy arose. This approach ensures that the administration has the flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances and policy priorities.
Sentiment Analysis of Reasons
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| No vested right to promotion | 40% |
| Rules at the time of consideration apply | 50% |
| Distinction from Y.V. Rangaiah case | 10% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
Logical Reasoning
The Court rejected the argument that the rules applicable at the time the vacancies arose should govern the promotions. It reasoned that such an approach would create inflexibility and hinder the ability of the administration to adapt to changes.
The Supreme Court stated, “There is merit in the submission which has been urged on behalf of the appellants that the respondent had no vested right to promotion but only a right to be considered in accordance with the rules as they existed on the date when the case for promotion was taken up.”
The Court also observed, “Rule 9(4) of the Rajasthan State Sports Council Service Rules, 2006…does not indicate that the vacancies must be filled in on the basis of Rules as they prevail in the year in which they have occurred.”
The Court clarified that, “the direction which was issued by the High Court is unsustainable.”
Key Takeaways
- ✓ Promotion rules are to be applied based on the rules prevailing at the time the promotion is considered, not when the vacancy arose.
- ✓ Employees have no vested right to promotion but only a right to be considered as per the rules in effect at the time of consideration.
- ✓ The administration has the flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances and policy priorities when making promotion decisions.
This judgment clarifies the position on promotion rules, ensuring that the administration can apply the most current rules while considering promotions. It also reinforces the principle that employees do not have a vested right to promotion.
Directions
The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court. It clarified that if respondent No. 1 (Smt. Uma Dadhich) has been promoted in the meantime in the regular course, this order will not affect the merits of that promotion.
Specific Amendments Analysis
There is no specific amendment that was discussed in the judgment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that promotion rules are to be applied based on the rules prevailing at the time the promotion is considered, not when the vacancy arose. This reaffirms the existing legal position and clarifies any ambiguity regarding the application of promotion rules.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the Rajasthan State Sports Council, setting aside the High Court’s judgment. The Court clarified that promotion decisions should be based on the rules in effect at the time of consideration, not the rules in effect when the vacancy arose. This decision reinforces the principle that employees have no vested right to promotion and provides clarity on the application of promotion rules.