Supreme Court Denies Review DPC for IAS Promotion: Vinod Prasad Raturi vs. Union of India (2021)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: March 05, 2021
Citation: Civil Appeal No.495 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 2288 of 2019)
Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J. and S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

Can an officer, who was serving in a different state due to ongoing litigation, seek a review of promotions to the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) cadre that occurred while he was not part of the cadre in question? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the allocation of State Civil Service (SCS) officers between Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand. The core issue revolved around whether a review Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) should be conducted to reconsider the promotion of an officer who was later allocated to a particular state, but whose juniors had been promoted to IAS earlier. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and S. Ravindra Bhat.

Case Background

The case arose from the reorganization of the State of Uttar Pradesh, which led to the creation of the State of Uttarakhand in 2000. Following the reorganization, the Central Government issued guidelines for allocating employees of the erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh between the two new states. A tentative allocation list was prepared, and objections were invited from aggrieved employees. A State Advisory Committee was formed to prepare a list of State Civil Service (SCS) officers based on their seniority for allocation to Uttarakhand. Some officers joined Uttarakhand, while others, including Appellant No. 2, objected and filed writ petitions in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The High Court stayed the allocation orders during the pendency of these petitions.

On April 22, 2003, the Central Government issued a final allocation list under Section 73 of the Uttar Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the allocation to Uttarakhand on December 11, 2003. Aggrieved, Appellant No. 2 and other SCS officers, including Respondent No. 4, filed Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court directed the authorities to maintain the status quo on January 7, 2004.

In 2011, the State of Uttarakhand communicated that there were 11 vacancies in the IAS cadre. Appellant No. 2 withdrew his SLP and joined Uttarakhand on April 15, 2011. The Appellants were included in the select list for 2011 and were promoted to IAS. The SLPs filed by Respondent No. 4 and others were dismissed on February 12, 2015, and a subsequent review petition was also dismissed. On June 9, 2015, the Government of India allocated Respondent No. 4 and other PCS officers to Uttarakhand. The request by the Government of Uttar Pradesh to retain Respondent No. 4 was rejected, and he joined Uttarakhand on October 1, 2016. A seniority list of SCS officers was prepared on February 20, 2017, and a final list was issued on March 17, 2017. Respondent No. 4 then requested his induction into the IAS cadre with seniority based on his position in the PCS cadre. He was promoted to IAS on January 9, 2018, and allocated the year 2010. As his juniors had been allocated earlier years, he requested a review DPC, which led to the High Court directing a review DPC within six months.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad initially stayed the allocation orders during the pendency of the writ petitions filed by the aggrieved officers. Subsequently, the High Court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the allocation to the State of Uttarakhand. The aggrieved officers, including Respondent No. 4, then filed Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) in the Supreme Court, which initially directed a status quo. After the dismissal of the SLPs, Respondent No. 4 filed a Review Petition, which was also dismissed. Finally, Respondent No. 4 filed a Writ Petition seeking a direction to conduct a review DPC, which the High Court allowed, directing the review DPC to be conducted within six months.

Legal Framework

The primary legal framework for this case is the Uttar Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000, specifically Section 73, which deals with the allocation of employees between the successor states. The Act states:

“73. Provisions as to services of officers and other employees.—(1) Every person who immediately before the appointed day is serving in connection with the affairs of the existing State of Uttar Pradesh shall, on and from that day provisionally continue to serve in connection with the affairs of the State of Uttar Pradesh unless he is, by a general or special order of the Central Government, required to serve on or after that day in connection with the affairs of the State of Uttaranchal.”

Additionally, the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, particularly Regulation 5(1), governs the determination of vacancies for promotion to the IAS cadre. The relevant part of the regulation states:

“5. Determination of vacancies to be filled- (1) The Central Government shall, in consultation with the State Government concerned, determine the number of vacancies in the cadre of the Indian Administrative Service to be filled by promotion from amongst the members of the State Civil Service.”

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The Appellants argued that the High Court erred in directing a review DPC without hearing them, as they were not made parties to the Writ Petition.
• They contended that Respondent No. 4 continued to serve in Uttar Pradesh due to an interim order and did not request consideration for IAS induction from Uttarakhand until 2016.
• The Appellants stated that Respondent No. 4 did not protest when they were inducted into the IAS cadre and cannot raise a grievance now, as he was not in Uttarakhand at the time.
• They further submitted that Respondent No. 4 was considered for promotion to the IAS cadre while working in Uttar Pradesh.

Respondent No. 4’s Arguments:

• Respondent No. 4 argued that the High Court’s order was innocuous and should not be interfered with under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
• He contended that his allocation to Uttarakhand was effective from November 9, 2000, and he was entitled to all benefits, including seniority.
• He emphasized that his juniors were promoted earlier than him and his request to review his seniority was legitimate.
• Respondent No. 4 pointed out that the Union of India also supported the review DPC.

Union of India’s Arguments:

• The Union of India submitted that the final allocation of SCS officers was delayed due to pending SLPs in the Supreme Court.
• It stated that after the dismissal of the SLPs, final allocation was made, and a decision was taken to hold a review DPC, which could not be completed due to objections from the State of Uttarakhand.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in directing the respondents to conduct a review Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for considering allotment of the 4th Respondent to an earlier batch.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The judgment does not explicitly cite any case laws or books. However, it does refer to the following legal provisions:

• Section 73 of the Uttar Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000: This section deals with the allocation of services of officers and other employees between the successor states.
• Regulation 5(1) of the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955: This regulation governs the determination of vacancies for promotion to the IAS cadre.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court considered Section 73 of the Uttar Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000 and held that the allocation of Respondent No. 4 dates back to 09.11.2000. However, the Court held that Respondent No. 4 could not be permitted to seek review of promotions made while he was serving the State of Uttar Pradesh.
• The Court considered Regulation 5(1) of the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, and noted that the Appellants were promoted to IAS in accordance with this regulation. The Court held that the promotion of the Appellants cannot be disturbed by the 4th Respondent, who continued to work in Uttar Pradesh of his volition.

What Weighed in the Mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that settled matters, especially those relating to seniority, should not be disturbed, particularly when the person seeking the review was not part of the cadre at the time of the initial promotions. The Court emphasized that Respondent No. 4 was serving in Uttar Pradesh at the time the Appellants were promoted to the IAS cadre in Uttarakhand. The Court also noted that Respondent No. 4 did not raise any objections at the time of the Appellants’ promotions and only sought a review after joining the Uttarakhand cadre. The Court was also influenced by the fact that the Appellants were not made parties to the Writ Petition before the High Court, which is a violation of the principles of natural justice.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court reasoned that while Respondent No. 4’s allocation to Uttarakhand dated back to 2000, he could not seek a review of promotions that occurred while he was serving in Uttar Pradesh. The Court emphasized that settled matters, especially those relating to seniority, should not be disturbed. The Court also noted that the High Court had erred in directing a review DPC without hearing the affected parties, i.e., the Appellants.

The Court rejected the argument that Respondent No. 4 was entitled to a review DPC because his juniors were promoted earlier than him. The Court reasoned that Respondent No. 4 had not protested the promotions at the time they occurred and had continued to serve in Uttar Pradesh of his own volition. The Court also rejected the argument that the delay in the final allocation of SCS officers justified a review DPC, holding that this delay did not warrant disturbing settled promotions.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“However, he cannot now seek to disturb settled matters, especially those relating to seniority of others during the period in which he was serving in the State of Uttar Pradesh.”

“The promotion of the Appellants cannot be disturbed by the 4th Respondent who continued to work in Uttar Pradesh of his volition.”

“The High Court committed an error in directing a review DPC to be conducted without hearing the affected parties and without realising that there was a likelihood of seniority of other officers being disturbed.”

Key Takeaways

• Settled seniority positions in service matters should not be disturbed, especially at the behest of an officer who was not part of the cadre at the time of the initial promotions.
• Officers who are aggrieved by promotions should raise their objections promptly and not wait until after they have joined the cadre.
• Courts should ensure that all affected parties are heard before passing orders that could impact their seniority or promotion prospects.
• Interim orders do not grant any right to a party to claim seniority or promotion, if the party has not joined the cadre.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and allowed the appeal, effectively denying the review DPC sought by Respondent No. 4.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that an officer cannot seek a review of promotions made while he was serving in a different state and was not part of the cadre in question. This decision reinforces the principle that settled seniority positions should not be disturbed, particularly when the officer seeking the review was not part of the cadre at the time of the initial promotions. This judgment also emphasizes the importance of raising objections promptly and ensuring that all affected parties are heard before any orders are passed that could affect their seniority or promotion prospects.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Vinod Prasad Raturi vs. Union of India reaffirms the importance of maintaining settled seniority positions and the need for timely objections in service matters. The Court held that an officer cannot seek a review of promotions that occurred while he was not part of the relevant cadre, emphasizing the need to protect the settled rights of other officers. This judgment serves as a reminder that courts should be cautious in disturbing settled matters, particularly when the person seeking such disturbance was not part of the cadre at the time of the initial promotions.