Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order on Flexible Complementing Scheme Rules: Union of India vs. Manjurani Routray (2023)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court can declare a rule ultra vires without a specific challenge in the pleadings.

CASE TYPE: Service Law

Case Name: Union of India & Ors. vs. Manjurani Routray & Ors.

[Judgment Date]: September 01, 2023

Date of the Judgment: September 01, 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 787
Judges: J.K. Maheshwari, J. and K.V. Viswanathan, J.
Can a High Court declare a rule invalid if it was not specifically challenged in the initial petition? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning promotion rules under the Flexible Complementing Scheme (FCS). The Court examined whether the High Court of Orissa was correct in striking down a rule when the petitioner had not explicitly challenged it. This judgment clarifies the importance of specific pleadings in judicial review. The bench comprised Justices J.K. Maheshwari and K.V. Viswanathan, who delivered a unanimous decision.

Case Background

The case originated from a dispute regarding the promotion of Manjurani Routray, who was working as Principal System Analyst (Scientist D) in the National Informatics Centre, Cuttack. She was seeking promotion to the post of ‘Scientist E’. The Flexible Complementing Scheme (FCS) was introduced based on the recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission. This scheme was governed by rules notified on 06.08.2001, which specified a two-stage assessment process for promotions: screening based on confidential reports and an interview by a selection committee.

Routray was called for interviews in December 1999 and December 2000 but was not recommended for promotion. Meanwhile, her juniors were promoted on 14.02.2001. Aggrieved by this, she submitted representations, which were rejected on 16.04.2001. Subsequently, she filed an Original Application (O.A.) before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) on 22.04.2001, challenging the rejection of her representations and the promotion of her juniors.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) disposed of the original application on 04.05.2005, directing the department to clarify the selection guidelines and inform Routray why she was not found suitable for promotion despite her high rating by the Assessment Board. The CAT did not quash the promotion orders of her juniors. Aggrieved by this order, Routray filed a writ petition before the High Court of Orissa, seeking to set aside the CAT order and direct her promotion from 01.01.2001.

The High Court, in its judgment dated 26.09.2008, declared Rule 4(b) of the Scientific and Technical Group “A” (Gazetted) posts in the Ministry of Information Technology (in-situ Promotion under Flexible Complementing Scheme) Rules 1998 as invalid. The High Court also directed the Union of India to amend the rule and reconsider Routray’s case for promotion. This order was challenged by the Union of India before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The key legal framework in this case is the Scientific and Technical Group “A” (Gazetted) posts in the Ministry of Information Technology (in-situ Promotion under Flexible Complementing Scheme) Rules 1998, specifically Rule 4. This rule outlines the assessment procedure for promotions under the Flexible Complementing Scheme (FCS).

Rule 4 of the Rules prescribes a revised assessment procedure in sub-clauses (a), (b), and (c), stating that the assessment for promotion shall consist of two stages: (i) “screening” by a screening committee based on performance in confidential reports; and (ii) “interview” by a selection committee.

The rules were made in exercise of powers conferred under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India.

Arguments

The arguments presented before the Supreme Court focused on whether the High Court was justified in declaring Rule 4(b) of the Rules as ultra vires, despite the absence of any specific challenge to the rule in the pleadings of the writ petition.

Submissions of the Appellants (Union of India)

• The Union of India argued that the High Court erred in declaring Rule 4(b) as ultra vires because the respondent (Manjurani Routray) had not specifically challenged the validity of the rule in her original application before the CAT or in her writ petition before the High Court.
• The appellants contended that there was no foundation in the pleadings to challenge the vires of Rule 4(b), and no such relief was sought.
• They emphasized that in the absence of a specific challenge, the Union of India did not have the opportunity to present its case regarding the object and justification of the rule.

Submissions of the Respondents (Manjurani Routray & Ors.)

• The respondents, including the intervenors, acknowledged that there was a defect in the pleadings and the relief sought before the CAT and in the writ petition.
• However, they attempted to argue that Rule 4(b) was discriminatory and that the High Court was justified in striking it down.
• The respondents and intervenors urged various grounds to demonstrate that Rule 4(b) was rightly struck down by the High Court.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following issue:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in declaring Rule 4(b) of the Scientific and Technical Group “A” (Gazetted) posts in the Ministry of Information Technology (in-situ Promotion under Flexible Complementing Scheme) Rules 1998 as ultra vires, in the absence of a specific challenge to the rule in the pleadings and without any prayer for such relief in the writ petition.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not rely on any specific cases or books in this judgment. The primary focus was on the procedural aspect of judicial review and the necessity of specific pleadings when challenging the validity of a rule.

The legal provision considered by the court was Rule 4(b) of the Scientific and Technical Group “A” (Gazetted) posts in the Ministry of Information Technology (in-situ Promotion under Flexible Complementing Scheme) Rules 1998, which outlines the assessment procedure for promotions under the Flexible Complementing Scheme (FCS).

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?
The Court focused on the procedural aspect of the challenge to Rule 4(b) of the Scientific and Technical Group “A” (Gazetted) posts in the Ministry of Information Technology (in-situ Promotion under Flexible Complementing Scheme) Rules 1998. It held that the High Court erred in declaring the rule ultra vires because there was no specific challenge to the rule in the pleadings. The Court did not express any view on the merits of the rule itself.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle of procedural fairness and the necessity of specific pleadings in judicial review. The Court emphasized that for striking down a provision of law or declaring any rule as ultra vires, specific pleading to challenge the rules and asking for such relief ought to be made.

Logical Reasoning

The Court reasoned that the High Court should not have declared Rule 4(b) as ultra vires in the absence of a specific challenge to the rule in the pleadings and without any prayer for such relief. The Court emphasized that without such a challenge, the Union of India did not have an opportunity to present its case.

The Supreme Court stated, “It is a trite law that for striking down the provisions of law or for declaring any rules as ultra vires, specific pleading to challenge the rules and asking of such relief ought to be made, that is conspicuously missing in the present case.”

The Court also noted, “In the absence of such a pleading, the Union of India did not have an opportunity to rebut the same. The other side had no opportunity to bring on record the object, if any, behind the Rules that were brought into force.”

The Court clarified, “We are also of the considered view that, in the writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari challenging the order of the CAT, the High Court ought not to have declared Rule 4(b) as ultra vires in the above fact situation. Therefore, the High Court was not justified to declare Rule 4(b) as ultra vires.”

The Supreme Court did not express any view regarding the validity of the Rules on merits. It clarified that its judgment would not prevent any court from dealing with the issue of the vires of the Rules in any pending or future proceedings.

Key Takeaways

• Specific pleadings are essential when challenging the validity of a rule or law in court.
• Courts should not declare a rule ultra vires if it has not been specifically challenged in the pleadings.
• The party whose rule or law is being challenged must have an opportunity to defend it.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court declaring Rule 4(b) of the Rules as invalid. The Court also recalled the order allowing the impleadment of respondents 3 to 141 and deleted them from the array of parties.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a High Court cannot declare a rule ultra vires without a specific challenge to the rule in the pleadings and without any prayer for such relief. This judgment reinforces the importance of procedural fairness and the need for specific pleadings in judicial review. There is no change in the previous position of law but a reiteration of the same.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order that had declared Rule 4(b) of the Flexible Complementing Scheme Rules as invalid. The Court emphasized that the High Court had erred in doing so because the rule was not specifically challenged in the pleadings of the writ petition. This judgment underscores the importance of adhering to procedural norms and the need for specific pleadings when challenging the validity of a law or rule.