Supreme Court overturns High Court order on IFS promotions: Union of India vs. Trilok S. Bhandari (29 September 2021)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 29 September 2021
Citation: Civil Appeal No(s). 6091 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 21736 of 2007)
Judges: Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Abhay S. Oka

Can a High Court direct the government to adjust promotions made to the Indian Forest Service (IFS) against notional vacancies, especially when a review process has already taken place? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning promotions within the IFS. The core issue revolved around whether the High Court of Uttarakhand was correct in ordering the adjustment of officers who were initially promoted to the IFS in 1996 but were later excluded after a review process. This judgment clarifies the scope of judicial intervention in service matters and the importance of adhering to established promotion procedures. The bench comprised Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Abhay S. Oka. The judgment was authored by Justice Rastogi.

Case Background

The case originated from a dispute regarding promotions to the Indian Forest Service (IFS) cadre. In 1996, promotions were made to the IFS cadre, including the 1st respondent, Trilok S. Bhandari, who was a member of the State Forest Service of UP Cadre. These promotions were based on a combined list of vacancies from 1984 to 1996. However, this method of clubbing vacancies was challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal). The Tribunal quashed the promotions, directing the authorities to prepare year-wise select lists. Following this, a review process was conducted, and new appointments were made in 2005. The 1st respondent was not included in the list of officers promoted after the review.

The 1st respondent, who had retired on 30th November 1996, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Uttarakhand, seeking adjustment against notional vacancies, relying on a previous Supreme Court judgment. The High Court allowed the petition, directing the Union of India to adjust the officers who were initially promoted in 1996 but were not included in the subsequent review. This High Court order was then challenged by the Union of India before the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The initial promotions to the IFS cadre in 1996 were challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal). The Tribunal quashed the combined select list, stating that clubbing vacancies was not permissible under the Indian Forest Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1966. The Tribunal directed the authorities to prepare year-wise select lists.

The order of the Tribunal was challenged in the High Court, which dismissed the challenge, upholding the Tribunal’s decision. Following this, a review process was conducted, and new appointments were made in 2005. The 1st respondent, who was initially promoted in 1996 but not selected in the review, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Uttarakhand, seeking adjustment against notional vacancies. The High Court allowed this petition, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of the Indian Forest Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1966 (referred to as “Regulations 1966”). Specifically, Regulation 5 of the Regulations 1966 was a point of contention.

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) had held that clubbing of vacancies was not permissible and was in violation of Regulation 5 of the Regulations 1966. The Tribunal had directed the authorities to prepare separate year-wise select lists.

Arguments

The arguments presented by both sides are summarized below:

Arguments of the Appellant (Union of India):

• The Union of India argued that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by granting omnibus relief, which was in clear violation of the Regulations 1966.
• They contended that the judgment relied upon by the High Court, which dealt with appointments in the Indian Administrative Service, was not applicable to the present case concerning the Indian Forest Service.
• The Union of India submitted that the appointments made based on the review selection committee’s recommendations in 2005 were never challenged, and therefore, the High Court should not have interfered with them.
• It was argued that the officers who were not selected in the review process had no right to continue in the IFS cadre.

Arguments of the Respondents:

• The respondents, particularly respondent no. 13, argued that since he was allowed to continue in the IFS cadre due to the interim order of the Supreme Court and had retired as an IFS officer, his service conditions should be protected.
• Respondent no. 13 also contended that his pension and other emoluments were computed based on his last pay drawn in the IFS cadre, and therefore, he should continue to receive benefits as an IFS officer.
• The respondents argued that the High Court’s order was in line with the spirit of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Union of India and Others Vs. Vipinchandra Hiralal Shah, which dealt with similar issues of promotion and vacancy management.

Sub-Submissions of the Parties:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in directing the adjustment of officers promoted in 1996 against notional vacancies, particularly when a review selection process had been conducted and appointments were made based on that review.
2. Whether the judgment in Union of India and Others Vs. Vipinchandra Hiralal Shah was applicable to the facts of the present case.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The judgment in Union of India and Others Vs. Vipinchandra Hiralal Shah [1996(6) SCC 721]* was held to be inapplicable to the present case. The Court reasoned that the case dealt with appointments in the Indian Administrative Service and was passed under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, which is not the same as the present case.
• The Indian Forest Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1966, were interpreted to determine the legality of the promotion process and the review process. The Court noted that the High Court’s order was in violation of these regulations.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the judgment of the High Court of Uttarakhand. However, exercising its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the Court directed that respondent no. 13 be treated as an officer of the IFS cadre, and his pension and other retiral benefits be computed accordingly.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The High Court’s order was passed without considering that the appointments made based on the review selection committee’s recommendations were never challenged.
• The High Court’s reliance on the judgment in Union of India and Others Vs. Vipinchandra Hiralal Shah was misplaced, as that case dealt with the Indian Administrative Service and was passed under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
• The officer on whose insistence the writ petition was filed had retired in 1996, and therefore, there was no justification for the High Court to pass such omnibus directions.
• The Court considered the fact that respondent no. 13 had continued in the IFS cadre due to the interim order of the Supreme Court and had retired as an IFS officer.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio:

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on legal principles and the interpretation of the Indian Forest Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1966. The factual aspects of the case, such as the retirement of the 1st respondent and the continued service of respondent no. 13, were also considered.

Logical Reasoning:

Key Takeaways

• The High Court should not interfere with appointments made based on a review selection committee’s recommendations if those recommendations have not been challenged.
• A judgment applicable to one service (e.g., Indian Administrative Service) may not be applicable to another service (e.g., Indian Forest Service) unless the facts and legal provisions are similar.
• The Supreme Court, under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, can protect the rights of individuals even while setting aside a High Court’s judgment.
• Interim orders of the Supreme Court can have significant implications for the service conditions of individuals.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that respondent no. 13 be treated as an officer of the IFS cadre, and his pension and all other retiral benefits be computed treating him to be a member of the IFS cadre for all practical purposes.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the High Court should not interfere with appointments made based on a review selection committee’s recommendations if those recommendations have not been challenged. The Supreme Court also clarified that a judgment applicable to one service may not be applicable to another service unless the facts and legal provisions are similar. This case reinforces the principle that courts should be cautious in interfering with administrative decisions, especially in service matters, and should adhere to established procedures. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the Supreme Court has clarified the scope of judicial intervention in service matters.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the Union of India, setting aside the judgment of the High Court of Uttarakhand. The Court held that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by directing the adjustment of officers promoted in 1996 against notional vacancies, especially when a review process had already taken place, and the appointments made based on the review were not challenged. However, exercising its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the Court protected the rights of respondent no. 13, directing that he be treated as an IFS officer for the purpose of pension and retiral benefits.