LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a claim for promotion can be rejected due to significant delay and whether the reservation policy for promotions was correctly applied.
CASE TYPE: Service Law
Case Name: Union of India & Ors. vs. C. Girija & Ors.
Judgment Date: 13 February 2019
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 13 February 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 122
Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., K.M. Joseph, J.
Can a government employee’s claim for promotion be dismissed due to a long delay in raising the issue? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, along with the proper application of reservation policies in promotions, in a case involving the Indian Railways. This judgment clarifies the importance of timely action in service matters and reaffirms the procedures for implementing reservation policies in departmental promotions. The bench consisted of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice K.M. Joseph, with the judgment authored by Justice Ashok Bhushan.
Case Background
The Southern Railway issued a notification on 14 October 1999, announcing a selection process for Group ‘C’ employees to be promoted to Group ‘B’ within the Personnel Department. This was under a 30% quota via a Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE). The notification specified five vacancies: four unreserved and one for Scheduled Caste (SC) candidates. C. Girija, an Office Superintendent, applied as an unreserved candidate, while Meena Bhaskar applied as an SC candidate.
On 9 January 2001, a select panel was released. C. Girija’s name was not included against the four unreserved posts, though she was fifth in the unreserved category based on her marks. Meena Bhaskar was selected against the single SC post. Subsequently, a panel for the 70% quota was issued on 10 April 2001, with 13 vacancies (10 unreserved, 2 SC, 1 ST) for Assistant Personnel Officer (APO) positions, relating to the period from 1 October 1996 to 30 September 1998. This brought the total vacancies to 18, divided between the 30% and 70% quotas.
The 70% quota panel was revised on 20 June 2007, adding two SC employees and removing two junior unreserved employees. This panel was revised again on 5 September 2007, adjusting two unreserved employees. On 25 September 2007, C. Girija submitted a representation to the General Manager of Southern Railway, requesting her inclusion and promotion against the 30% quota panel from 9 January 2001. She argued that reserving one post for SC candidates in the 30% quota was against norms. The General Manager replied on 27 December 2007, stating that the revisions of 20 June 2007 and 5 September 2007 pertained to the 70% quota and that the 30% quota selection was finalized on 9 January 2001, based on the reservation rules at the time.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 14 October 1999 | Southern Railway issued notification for Group ‘B’ selection under 30% LDCE quota. |
| 9 January 2001 | Select panel issued; C. Girija not included in unreserved category; Meena Bhaskar selected for SC post. |
| 10 April 2001 | Panel for 70% quota was issued. |
| 20 June 2007 | 70% quota panel revised, adding two SC employees. |
| 5 September 2007 | 70% quota panel revised again, adjusting two unreserved employees. |
| 25 September 2007 | C. Girija submitted representation to General Manager requesting inclusion in 30% quota panel. |
| 27 December 2007 | General Manager replied, stating 30% quota selection was finalized as per rules. |
| 2009 | C. Girija filed O.A. No.466 of 2009 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam. |
| 9 November 2011 | Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) directed inclusion of C. Girija in the panel. |
| 3 April 2012 | Kerala High Court remanded the matter back to the Tribunal. |
| 4 August 2014 | Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgment and remanded the matter back to the High Court. |
| 6 February 2015 | Kerala High Court upheld the Tribunal’s order. |
| 31 May 2015 | C. Girija retired from service. |
| 13 February 2019 | Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by Union of India and Meena Bhaskar and disposed of the writ petition with directions. |
Course of Proceedings
Aggrieved by the General Manager’s communication, C. Girija filed O.A. No. 466 of 2009 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Ernakulam, impleading Meena Bhaskar as a respondent. The Tribunal condoned a delay of 560 days and ruled in favor of C. Girija on 9 November 2011, directing her inclusion in the panel and promotion, with Meena Bhaskar to be adjusted against a subsequent vacancy. The Tribunal quashed the communication dated 27.12.2007.
Meena Bhaskar and the Union of India filed separate Original Petitions before the Kerala High Court. The High Court remanded the matter back to the Tribunal on 3 April 2012 for fresh consideration. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and remanded the matter back to the High Court on 4 August 2014. Subsequently, the High Court upheld the Tribunal’s order on 6 February 2015, dismissing the petitions of the Union of India and Meena Bhaskar. The Union of India and Meena Bhaskar then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of the reservation policy for Scheduled Castes (SCs) in promotions within the Indian Railways. The relevant legal provisions include:
- The rules and regulations governing departmental promotions within the Indian Railways.
- The principles of reservation as enshrined in the Constitution of India, particularly Article 16, which guarantees equality of opportunity in matters of public employment.
The specific rules regarding the allocation of vacancies under the 30% Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) quota and the 70% regular selection quota are also central to the case. The court examined how these quotas were calculated and applied in the context of the existing cadre strength and the number of SC candidates already in service.
Arguments
Arguments by the Union of India:
- The claim of C. Girija was barred by delay and laches. The cause of action arose when the notification dated 14 October 1999 was issued, earmarking 5 vacancies with 4 unreserved and 1 reserved. C. Girija participated in the selection without objection and only raised the issue after more than six years.
- The reply to C. Girija’s representation on 27 December 2007 did not provide a fresh cause of action.
- C. Girija, having participated in the selection without objection, could not challenge the allocation of one vacancy to SC candidates after such a long delay.
- The cadre strength was 37, and the total vacancies were calculated as 18, with 13 allocated to 70% selection and 5 to 30% LDCE. Initially, all 5 vacancies in the 30% quota were shown as general, but this was revised to 4 unreserved and 1 reserved after an objection by the Nodal Officer.
Arguments by C. Girija:
- There was no delay or laches on her part. Her husband had sent representations since 2002. She became aware of irregularities during a CBI investigation and filed a representation on 25 September 2007.
- The Tribunal condoned the delay of 560 days, and the O.A. was allowed on merits.
- Under the 30% LDCE quota, two SC candidates were already in place, so no further vacancy should have been allocated to the SC quota.
- She never received the promotion or pay benefits despite the Tribunal and High Court orders.
Arguments by Meena Bhaskar:
- C. Girija’s claim was highly delayed. The cause of action arose on 14 October 1999 and 9 January 2001, and the representation was submitted after more than six years.
- The reply to the representation did not provide a fresh cause of action.
- The promotion granted to Meena Bhaskar on 9 January 2001 should not be affected after such a long delay.
- The findings of the Tribunal and High Court on the allocation of vacancies were incorrect.
Submissions by Parties
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Union of India |
|
| C. Girija |
|
| Meena Bhaskar |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:
- Whether the claim of the applicant to be included in the Panel dated 09.01.2001 for promotion as APO was barred by delay and laches?
- Whether under 30% quota of LDCE, all the 05 vacancies ought to have been made unreserved and notification dated 14.10.1999 making 04 vacancies unreserved and 01 vacancy reserved for SC was illegal?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the claim of the applicant to be included in the Panel dated 09.01.2001 for promotion as APO was barred by delay and laches? | The Court held that the claim was indeed barred by delay and laches. The applicant’s representation was made more than six years after the panel was declared, and a mere reply to the representation did not revive the stale claim. |
| Whether under 30% quota of LDCE, all the 05 vacancies ought to have been made unreserved and notification dated 14.10.1999 making 04 vacancies unreserved and 01 vacancy reserved for SC was illegal? | The Court held that the allocation of 4 unreserved and 1 reserved vacancy was correct. The Railways provided a plausible explanation for the roster point calculation, which was not properly considered by the Tribunal and High Court. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
On Delay and Laches:
- C. Jacob vs. Director of Geology and Mining and Another, (2008) 10 SCC 115, Supreme Court of India: This case established that a mere direction to consider a representation does not revive a stale claim, and the delay should be considered from the original cause of action.
- Union of India and Others vs. M.K. Sarkar, (2010) 2 SCC 59, Supreme Court of India: This case reiterated that a belated representation does not provide a fresh cause of action and that the issue of limitation should be considered from the original cause of action.
- State of Uttaranchal and Another vs. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari and Others, (2013) 12 SCC 179, Supreme Court of India: This case held that representations relating to stale claims do not give rise to a fresh cause of action and that a mere submission of a representation does not arrest time.
- P.S. Sadasivaswamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (1975) 1 SCC 152, Supreme Court of India: This case noted that a person aggrieved by an order of promoting a junior over his head should approach the Court within six months or at most a year of such promotion.
On Participation in Selection Process:
- Ashok Kumar and Another vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2017) 4 SCC 357, Supreme Court of India: This case held that a candidate who participates in a selection process without objection cannot later challenge the process if they are not successful.
- Chandra Prakash Tiwari vs. Shakuntala Shukla, (2002) 6 SCC 127, Supreme Court of India: This case laid down the principle that when a candidate appears at an examination without objection and is subsequently found to be not successful, a challenge to the process is precluded.
- Union of India vs. S. Vinodh Kumar, (2007) 8 SCC 100, Supreme Court of India: This case held that candidates who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein were not entitled to question the same.
- Amlan Jyoti Borooah, (2009) 3 SCC 227, Supreme Court of India: This case reiterated that candidates who have taken part in a selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein are not entitled to question it upon being declared to be unsuccessful.
- Manish Kumar Shahi vs. State of Bihar, (2010) 12 SCC 576, Supreme Court of India: This case reiterated the principle that after having taken part in the process of selection knowing fully well the criteria, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the same.
- Vijendra Kumar Verma vs. Public Service Commission, (2011) 1 SCC 150, Supreme Court of India: This case held that candidates who participated in the selection process and were aware of the required qualifications cannot challenge the process later.
- Ramesh Chandra Shah vs. Anil Joshi, (2013) 11 SCC 309, Supreme Court of India: This case held that a person who consciously takes part in the process of selection cannot, thereafter, turn around and question the method of selection and its outcome.
- Chandigarh Admn. vs. Jasmine Kaur, (2014) 10 SCC 521, Supreme Court of India: This case held that a candidate who takes a calculated risk by subjecting himself to the selection process cannot complain that the process was unfair after knowing of his or her non-selection.
- Pradeep Kumar Rai vs. Dinesh Kumar Pandey, (2015) 11 SCC 493, Supreme Court of India: This case held that candidates cannot challenge the interview process after the results are declared if they participated without objection.
- Madras Institute of Development Studies vs. K. Sivasubramaniyan, (2016) 1 SCC 454, Supreme Court of India: This case reiterated the principle of not allowing a challenge to the selection process after participation.
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Party | Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|---|
| Union of India | Claim was barred by delay and laches. | Accepted. The Court agreed that the claim was indeed barred by delay and laches. |
| Union of India | No fresh cause of action from reply to representation. | Accepted. The Court held that the reply to the representation did not revive the stale claim. |
| Union of India | C. Girija cannot challenge allocation after participating. | Accepted. The Court held that C. Girija could not challenge the allocation of vacancies after participating in the selection process. |
| Union of India | Correct calculation of vacancies. | Accepted. The Court found the Railways’ explanation for the calculation of vacancies plausible and correct. |
| C. Girija | No delay or laches. | Rejected. The Court found that there was significant delay and laches on the part of the applicant. |
| C. Girija | Tribunal condoned delay and allowed O.A. on merits. | Rejected. The Court held that the Tribunal and High Court had not considered the delay from the date of the panel declaration. |
| C. Girija | No SC vacancy should have been allocated under 30% quota. | Rejected. The Court found the Railways’ explanation for the allocation of vacancies to be plausible. |
| C. Girija | Never received promotion or pay benefits. | Partially Accepted. The Court directed the payment of retirement benefits with interest. |
| Meena Bhaskar | C. Girija’s claim was highly delayed. | Accepted. The Court agreed that C. Girija’s claim was highly delayed. |
| Meena Bhaskar | Reply to representation did not provide fresh cause of action. | Accepted. The Court agreed that the reply did not provide a fresh cause of action. |
| Meena Bhaskar | Promotion should not be affected. | Accepted. The Court held that the promotion granted to Meena Bhaskar should not be affected after such a long delay. |
| Meena Bhaskar | Findings of Tribunal and High Court were incorrect. | Accepted. The Court found the findings of the Tribunal and High Court regarding the allocation of vacancies to be incorrect. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
The Court relied on the following authorities to support its reasoning:
- C. Jacob vs. Director of Geology and Mining and Another, (2008) 10 SCC 115*: The Court used this case to emphasize that a mere direction to consider a representation does not revive a stale claim.
- Union of India and Others vs. M.K. Sarkar, (2010) 2 SCC 59*: This authority was used to support the view that a belated representation does not create a fresh cause of action.
- State of Uttaranchal and Another vs. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari and Others, (2013) 12 SCC 179*: The Court cited this case to reinforce that stale claims do not give rise to a fresh cause of action, and representations do not arrest time.
- P.S. Sadasivaswamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (1975) 1 SCC 152*: This case was used to highlight that a person aggrieved by a promotion order should approach the court within a reasonable time.
- Ashok Kumar and Another vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2017) 4 SCC 357*: This case was cited to support the principle that a candidate who participates in a selection process without objection cannot later challenge the process.
- Chandra Prakash Tiwari vs. Shakuntala Shukla, (2002) 6 SCC 127*: This authority was used to demonstrate that a candidate cannot challenge a process after participating in it without objection.
- Union of India vs. S. Vinodh Kumar, (2007) 8 SCC 100*: The Court relied on this case to support the view that candidates who participated in a selection process knowing the procedure cannot later question it.
- Amlan Jyoti Borooah, (2009) 3 SCC 227*: This case was used to reinforce that candidates cannot challenge a selection process they participated in.
- Manish Kumar Shahi vs. State of Bihar, (2010) 12 SCC 576*: The Court cited this case to reiterate that after participating in a selection process, a candidate cannot challenge the criteria.
- Vijendra Kumar Verma vs. Public Service Commission, (2011) 1 SCC 150*: This case was used to show that candidates aware of the qualifications cannot challenge the process later.
- Ramesh Chandra Shah vs. Anil Joshi, (2013) 11 SCC 309*: This case was cited to support the principle that a person cannot challenge a selection process after participating in it.
- Chandigarh Admn. vs. Jasmine Kaur, (2014) 10 SCC 521*: The Court relied on this case to show that a candidate cannot complain about the selection process after participating in it.
- Pradeep Kumar Rai vs. Dinesh Kumar Pandey, (2015) 11 SCC 493*: This case was used to support the view that candidates cannot challenge the interview process after the results are declared if they participated without objection.
- Madras Institute of Development Studies vs. K. Sivasubramaniyan, (2016) 1 SCC 454*: The Court cited this case to reiterate the principle of not allowing a challenge to the selection process after participation.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principles of delay and laches and the conduct of the applicant, C. Girija, in participating in the selection process without raising objections. The Court emphasized that stale claims should not be entertained, and a mere representation does not revive a dead cause of action. The Court also noted that the applicant was aware of the allocation of vacancies and participated in the selection process without objection, thus precluding her from challenging it later.
Sentiment Analysis of Reasons
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Delay and Laches | 40% |
| Participation without Objection | 30% |
| Plausible Explanation by Railways | 20% |
| No Fresh Cause of Action | 10% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact (Consideration of factual aspects) | 60% |
| Law (Consideration of legal aspects) | 40% |
Logical Reasoning for Issue 1
Logical Reasoning for Issue 2
The Court rejected the argument that the allocation of one SC vacancy under the 30% quota was incorrect, accepting the Railways’ explanation that the roster point was reserved for SC. The Court also emphasized that the Tribunal and High Court did not properly consider the plausible explanation given by the Railways regarding the determination of vacancies.
The Court considered the following points:
- The representation was filed after a delay of more than six and a half years from the date of the panel, making the claim stale.
- A mere reply to the representation does not revive a stale claim.
- The applicant participated in the selection process knowing the bifurcation of vacancies and could not challenge it after being unsuccessful.
- The Railways provided a plausible explanation for the determination of vacancies, which was not properly considered by the Tribunal and High Court.
The Court quoted the following from the judgment:
- “The claim of inclusion in the panel had become stale by that time and filing of representation will not give any fresh cause of action.”
- “She having participated in the selection for promotion under 30% LDCE quota and the bifurcation of the vacancies being part of the process of selection, it was not open for her to challenge the bifurcation of vacancies into general and reserved after taking a chance to get selected.”
- “Thus, there was plausible explanation for determination of vacancies given by the Railways.”
There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The bench consisted of two judges, both of whom agreed with the final judgment.
Key Takeaways
- Timely Action: Government employees must raise grievances related to promotions or selections promptly. Delay can be a significant barrier to relief.
- Participation Without Objection: Candidates who participate in a selection process without objection cannot later challenge the process if they are not successful.
- Plausible Explanations: Courts will consider plausible explanations provided by authorities regarding the application of rules and regulations.
- Stale Claims: Mere filing of a representation does not revive a stale claim.
- Retirement Benefits: Retirement benefits should be computed and paid promptly, and delays may be compensated with interest.
This judgment emphasizes the importance of timely action in service matters and reinforces the principle that candidates cannot challenge a process they participated in without objection. It also highlights the need for a plausible explanation when applying reservation policies.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the following:
- Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in Writ Petition (C) No. 653 of 2015, i.e., the Union of India and the Railways, are directed to compute the retirement benefits payable to C. Girija and pay the same along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of retirement until the date of payment.
- The appeals filed by the Union of India and Meena Bhaskar were allowed.
- The writ petition filed by C. Girija was disposed of with directions.
Source: Union of India vs. C. Girija