Supreme Court clarifies the scope of Rule 39 of Kerala Service Rules in Promotion Matters: Anil Kumar P.P. vs. State of Kerala (25 September 2018)

Date of the Judgment: 25 September 2018
Citation: Civil Appeal No(s). 9954-9955 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 7378-7379 of 2017)
Judges: Kurian Joseph J., Sanjay Kishan Kaul J.
Can the government exempt an employee from mandatory training requirements for promotion based solely on the remaining service period? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a case concerning the promotion of a Deputy Range Officer to Range Forest Officer in Kerala. The Court examined the validity of the government’s decision to relax training requirements under Rule 39 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules. The bench comprised Justices Kurian Joseph and Sanjay Kishan Kaul, who delivered a unanimous judgment.

Case Background

The appellant, Anil Kumar P.P., was a Deputy Range Officer seeking promotion to the post of Range Forest Officer, a position previously known as Range Officer. The Government of Kerala had issued orders under Rule 39 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, relaxing certain requirements for his promotion. However, the High Court had set aside these orders, prompting the appellant to approach the Supreme Court.

The core issue revolved around the government’s decision to exempt the appellant from mandatory training required for promotion to Range Forest Officer. This exemption was granted based on the fact that the appellant had only 4.5 years of service left, and undergoing training might not leave him with sufficient service post-training. The appellant contended that the government had rightly exercised its powers under Rule 39, while the respondents argued that the exemption was not justified.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The case primarily concerns Rule 39 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules. This rule allows the government to relax the rigour of the General Rules and Special Rules for promotion in certain cases. However, the Supreme Court examined whether this power was exercised correctly in the present case, particularly regarding the exemption from mandatory training.

Rule 39 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, as referred to in the judgment, allows the Government to relax the rules for promotion. However, the Supreme Court noted that this power must be exercised judiciously, and not arbitrarily. The specific text of Rule 39 was not quoted in the judgment.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The Government had applied its mind to the peculiar facts of the appellant’s case.
• The invocation of Rule 39 was in terms of equity and justice.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The exemption from mandatory training was not justified.
• There was no appropriate satisfaction on the part of the competent authority that the appellant’s experience, exposure, and expertise obviated the need for training.

Arguments Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue that the court addressed was:

• Whether the Government was justified in exempting the appellant from mandatory training for promotion to the post of Range Forest Officer under Rule 39 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issue:

Authorities

The judgment does not explicitly cite any prior case laws or legal provisions other than Rule 39 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules. The court’s reasoning is based on the interpretation of the rule and the principles of equity and justice.

Judgment

The Court held that the exemption from mandatory training was not justified. The Court observed that while the government had the power to relax the rules under Rule 39, such relaxation cannot be arbitrary. It emphasized that if training is a requirement for promotion, an exemption can only be granted if there is a specific finding that the candidate’s experience and expertise obviate the need for training. In this case, the exemption was solely based on the remaining service period, which the Court found to be insufficient justification.

The Court set aside the order dated 23.08.2013 and remitted the matter back to the Government for fresh consideration. The Government was directed to provide an opportunity of hearing to the appellant and pass fresh orders within six weeks. The Court clarified that the impugned judgment of the High Court should not hinder the government from considering the representation afresh.

The court stated, “If training is a requirement for appointment/promotion to a post, unless there is an appropriate satisfaction on the part of the competent authority that in view of the experience, exposure and expertise of the candidate concerned, it was not necessary for a further training, there could not have been an exemption from the mandatory requirement of training on invoking Rule 39.”

It was also observed, “We do not find that there was such an enquiry in that regard and a consequent satisfaction.”

The Court also clarified, “We make it clear that this Judgment is passed having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the same is not to be treated as a precedent.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that while the government has the power to relax rules, such power must be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily. The Court emphasized that exemptions from mandatory training should be based on a thorough assessment of the candidate’s experience and expertise, not merely on the remaining service period. The Court’s reasoning focused on ensuring that the integrity of the training requirement is maintained and that exemptions are granted only when genuinely justified.

Key Takeaways

• Government’s power to relax service rules under Rule 39 must be exercised judiciously.
• Exemptions from mandatory training cannot be granted solely based on the remaining service period.
• A proper inquiry and satisfaction regarding the candidate’s experience and expertise are necessary for granting exemptions from training.
• The judgment emphasizes the importance of maintaining the integrity of mandatory training requirements for promotions.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the Government to reconsider the matter, providing an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. Fresh orders were to be passed within six weeks.

Development of Law

The judgment clarifies that while Rule 39 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules allows for relaxation of rules, it does not permit arbitrary exemptions from mandatory training. The ratio decidendi of the case is that exemptions from mandatory training must be based on a specific finding that the candidate’s experience and expertise obviate the need for training, and not merely on the remaining service period. This judgment reinforces the principle that the government’s power to relax rules must be exercised judiciously and in a manner that is consistent with the purpose of the rules themselves.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Anil Kumar P.P. vs. State of Kerala clarifies the limits of the government’s power to relax service rules under Rule 39 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, particularly in the context of mandatory training for promotions. The Court emphasized that while relaxation is permissible, exemptions from mandatory training must be based on a thorough assessment of the candidate’s experience and expertise, ensuring that the integrity of the training requirement is maintained. The matter was remitted back to the Government for fresh consideration, with a direction to provide a hearing to the appellant and to pass fresh orders within six weeks.