Date of the Judgment: October 7, 2021
Citation: (2021) INSC 688
Judges: Hon’ble Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka
Can a government employee claim a promotion based solely on the fact that their juniors were promoted while they were out of service due to a dismissal that was later overturned? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case involving a cashier in the Uttar Pradesh Transport Department. The court ultimately ruled against the cashier, emphasizing that promotions to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor are based on a competitive examination, not seniority. This judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka.
Case Background
Shyam Lal Jaiswal, the respondent, was employed as a Cashier in the Transport Department of Uttar Pradesh starting June 1967. He faced a departmental inquiry for alleged misconduct and was subsequently dismissed from service on November 20, 1975. Jaiswal challenged this dismissal, and the State Public Services Tribunal, U.P. set aside the dismissal order on February 14, 1984. This decision was upheld by the Supreme Court when it dismissed the Special Leave Petition on April 20, 2000.
During the course of this litigation, Jaiswal reached the age of superannuation on March 31, 1996. After his dismissal was overturned, he initiated fresh litigation. He argued that his juniors, Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha and Mr. K.M. Haleem, were promoted to Assistant Public Prosecutors on February 21, 1980. Based on the restoration of his position, Jaiswal claimed he was also entitled to be promoted from the date his juniors were promoted.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| June 1967 | Shyam Lal Jaiswal joined as a Cashier in the Transport Department. |
| November 20, 1975 | Shyam Lal Jaiswal was dismissed from service. |
| February 21, 1980 | Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha and Mr. K.M. Haleem were promoted as Assistant Public Prosecutors. |
| February 14, 1984 | The State Public Services Tribunal, U.P. set aside the dismissal order. |
| March 31, 1996 | Shyam Lal Jaiswal reached the age of superannuation. |
| April 20, 2000 | Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, upholding the Tribunal’s order. |
| October 7, 2021 | Supreme Court decided the appeal filed by State of UP. |
Course of Proceedings
The State Public Services Tribunal, U.P. initially ruled in favor of Shyam Lal Jaiswal, ordering that he be considered for promotion as Assistant Public Prosecutor from the date his juniors were promoted. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, upheld this decision. The State of Uttar Pradesh then appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s order.
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court referred to the Uttar Pradesh Transport (Subordinate) Prosecution Service Rules, 1979. Specifically, Rule 5 of the 1979 Rules, which governs recruitment to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor, was considered. The rule states that recruitment shall be made by direct recruitment on the basis of a competitive examination followed by a Viva Voce test conducted by the Commission. The post of Assistant Public Prosecutor is included in the Schedule appended to the 1979 Rules.
The relevant part of the Uttar Pradesh Transport (Subordinate) Prosecution Service Rules, 1979 is:
“Rule 5 of the 1979 Rules, the recruitment to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor shall be made by direct recruitment on the basis of a competitive examination followed by a Viva Voce test to be conducted by the Commission.”
Arguments
The respondent, Shyam Lal Jaiswal, argued that since his dismissal was set aside and his position restored, he was entitled to the same benefits as his juniors, including promotion to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor from the date his juniors were promoted.
The State of Uttar Pradesh contended that the promotion to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor is governed by the 1979 Rules, which mandate a competitive examination and a viva voce test. They argued that since the respondent did not participate in such a process, he could not claim a promotion based solely on the promotion of his juniors.
| Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Respondent (Shyam Lal Jaiswal) |
|
| Appellant (State of Uttar Pradesh) |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue before the court was:
- Whether a government employee, whose dismissal was set aside, is entitled to promotion to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor from the date his juniors were promoted, without having participated in a competitive examination and viva voce test as required by the relevant rules.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the respondent is entitled to promotion from the date his juniors were promoted. | No. | The post of Assistant Public Prosecutor is filled through direct recruitment based on a competitive examination and viva voce test as per the 1979 Rules. The respondent did not go through this process. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court primarily relied on the Uttar Pradesh Transport (Subordinate) Prosecution Service Rules, 1979, specifically Rule 5, which outlines the procedure for recruitment to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor.
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Uttar Pradesh Transport (Subordinate) Prosecution Service Rules, 1979, Rule 5 | – | The court relied on this rule to determine that promotion to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor is based on a competitive exam and viva voce, and not on seniority or restoration of service. |
Judgment
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Respondent’s claim for promotion based on junior’s promotion. | Rejected. The Court held that the respondent’s claim was not sustainable because the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor is filled through direct recruitment by competitive examination and viva voce as per the 1979 Rules. |
The Supreme Court held that the order of the High Court confirming the order of the Tribunal was not sustainable in law.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the specific rules governing the recruitment of Assistant Public Prosecutors in Uttar Pradesh. The court emphasized that promotions to this post are not based on seniority or restoration of service, but rather on a competitive examination and viva voce test. The court found that the Tribunal and the High Court overlooked these crucial rules while deciding the case. The court’s reasoning was based on the established legal framework for the appointment of Assistant Public Prosecutors.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Emphasis on the 1979 Rules and Competitive Examination | 70% |
| Rejection of promotion based on seniority. | 30% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The Supreme Court stated:
“the grievance of the respondent is not sustainable for the reason that the post of Assistant Public prosecutor is included in the Schedule appended to the Uttar Pradesh Transport (Subordinate) Prosecution Service Rules, 1979 (for short ‘the 1979 Rules’) which was published in the extraordinary Gazette on 27.07.1979 and in terms of Rule 5 of the 1979 Rules, the recruitment to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor shall be made by direct recruitment on the basis of a competitive examination followed by a Viva Voce test to be conducted by the Commission.”
“This fact has been completely ignored by the Tribunal and so also by the High Court in the order impugned. Taking the Scheme of Rules 1979 and Rule 5, in particular, in our considered view, the order of the High Court confirming order of the Tribunal is not sustainable in law.”
“Consequently, the Appeal succeeds and accordingly allowed. The order of the High Court dated 03.08.2018 confirming the order dated 12.12.2013 of the Tribunal is hereby set aside.”
Key Takeaways
- Promotions to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor in Uttar Pradesh are based on merit determined through a competitive examination and viva voce test.
- Restoration of service after a dismissal is overturned does not automatically entitle an employee to a promotion that requires a competitive process.
- Courts will prioritize adherence to specific service rules when deciding on matters of promotion.
Directions
The Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court and the Tribunal.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that promotions to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor in Uttar Pradesh are based on merit determined through a competitive examination and viva voce test as prescribed under the Uttar Pradesh Transport (Subordinate) Prosecution Service Rules, 1979 and not on seniority or restoration of service. This judgment reinforces the importance of following the prescribed rules for recruitment and promotion in public services.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in State of U.P. vs. Shyam Lal Jaiswal clarifies that promotions to specific posts like Assistant Public Prosecutor are governed by the rules that prescribe the process of recruitment and promotion. A government employee cannot claim a promotion based solely on the fact that their juniors were promoted while they were out of service due to a dismissal that was later overturned. The court emphasized that merit, determined through a competitive process, is the primary criterion for such promotions.
Category
Parent Category: Service Law
Child Category: Promotion
Child Category: Uttar Pradesh Transport (Subordinate) Prosecution Service Rules, 1979
FAQ
Q: What was the main issue in the State of U.P. vs. Shyam Lal Jaiswal case?
A: The main issue was whether a government employee, whose dismissal was set aside, is entitled to promotion to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor from the date his juniors were promoted, without having participated in a competitive examination and viva voce test as required by the relevant rules.
Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?
A: The Supreme Court ruled against the employee, holding that promotions to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor are based on a competitive examination and viva voce test, not on seniority or restoration of service.
Q: What are the Uttar Pradesh Transport (Subordinate) Prosecution Service Rules, 1979?
A: These rules govern the recruitment and promotion of employees in the Uttar Pradesh Transport Department’s prosecution service. Rule 5 of these rules specifies that recruitment to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor is through a competitive examination followed by a viva voce test.
Q: What does this judgment mean for government employees in Uttar Pradesh?
A: This judgment means that government employees in Uttar Pradesh seeking promotions to posts like Assistant Public Prosecutor must go through the prescribed competitive process. Simply having their service restored after a dismissal does not automatically entitle them to a promotion.
Q: Can an employee claim a promotion based on their junior’s promotion?
A: No, an employee cannot claim a promotion based solely on their junior’s promotion, especially if the promotion requires a competitive process as per the service rules.