Supreme Court of India
RAJASTHAN STATE SPORTS COUNCIL & ANR.versusSMT. UMA DADHICH & ANR.
- Citation
- 2019 INSC 62
- Decided
- 21 January 2019
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- D Y CHANDRACHUD
Holding
A service employee has no vested right to promotion; promotion must be considered under the rules in force when the promotion case is taken up, and Rule 9(4) does not mandate applying the rules as of the vacancy year.
Summary
Respondent No.1, a long‑serving coach in the Rajasthan State Sports Council, challenged the promotion of another employee to the post of Sports Officer for vacancies that arose in 2003‑2004, arguing that the seniority‑cum‑merit criteria introduced by the 2006 Service Rules should not be applied retroactively. The High Court initially dismissed the petition, but a Division Bench reversed, holding that the 2006 criteria could not govern vacancies that pre‑dated the Rules. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that a service employee has no vested right to promotion; the employee is only entitled to be considered according to the rules in force at the time the promotion case is taken up. The Court examined Rule 9(4) of the 2006 Rules and found it does not require applying the Rules as they existed in the year the vacancy arose. Consequently, the High Court’s direction to re‑consider the promotion under the 2006 criteria was unsustainable. The appeal was allowed and the High Court judgment set aside.
Issues considered
- Whether the promotion criteria prescribed in the Rajasthan State Sports Council Service Rules, 2006 can be applied retroactively to vacancies that arose before the Rules were enacted.
- Whether a government employee has a vested right to promotion or merely a right to be considered under the applicable rules at the time of consideration.
Legislation cited
Subjects
promotionservice rulesvested rightseniority‑cum‑meritretroactive applicationadministrative lawinterpretation of rules
Judgment
[2019] 1 S.C.R. 585 585
RAJASTHAN STATE SPORTS COUNCIL & ANR. A
v.
SMT. UMA DADHICH & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 883 of 2019)
JANUARY 21, 2019
B
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD
AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Rajasthan State Sports Council Service Rules, 2006 – r.9(4)
– Respondent no. 1 was appointed under the Rajasthan State Sports
Council as Coach Grade-III in 1986 and was thereafter promoted
C
as Coach Grade-II in 1990 and Coach Grade-I in 1997 – Nine
persons were promoted to the post of Sports Officer from the post
of Coach Grade-I – Respondent No.1 challenged the decision of
the appellant to promote respondent No. 2 for vacancies falling in
the year 2003-2004 – Dismissed by Single Judge of High Court –
Division Bench reversed the judgment holding that the criteria of D
seniority-cum-merit and merit for the purpose of promotion to the
post of Sports Officer was introduced by the 2006 Rules and
therefore, the criteria prevalent in 2006 could not have been made
applicable to prior vacancies – On appeal, held: Respondent had
no vested right to promotion but only a right to be considered in
E
accordance with the rules as they existed on the date when the case
for promotion was taken up – Further, r.9(4) of the 2006 Rules,
relied on by the appellant, does not indicate that the vacancies must
be filled on the basis of Rules as they prevail in the year in which
they have occurred – Direction issued by the High Court is
unsustainable. F
Allowing the appeal, the Court
Held: 1.1 The respondent had no vested right to promotion
but only a right to be considered in accordance with the rules as
they existed on the date when the case for promotion was taken
up. [Para 7][587-G] G
1.2 Rule 9(4) of the Rajasthan State Sports Council Service
Rules, 2006 on which reliance has been placed on behalf of the
appellant does not indicate that the vacancies must be filled in on
the basis of Rules as they prevail in the year in which they have
occurred. The direction which was issued by the High Court is
H
585
586 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 1 S.C.R.
A unsustainable. It is however, clarifed that in the event that
respondent No. 1 has been promoted in the meantime in regular
course, this order will not affect the merits of that promotion.
The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. [Paras 9-
12][588-C-E]
B H.S. Grewal v. Union of India (1997) 11 SCC 758;
Deepak Agarwal v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2011) 6 SCC
725 : [2011] 4 SCR 149; State of Tripura v. Nikhil
Ranjan Chakraborty (2017) 3 SCC 646; Union of India
& Ors.v. Krishna Kumar & Ors. SLP(C) No. 26541 of
2014 decided on 14 January 2019; Y.V. Rangaiah v.
C Sreenivasa Rao (1983) 3 SCC 284 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
(1997) 11 SCC 758 referred to Para 7
[2011] 4 SCR 149 referred to Para 7
D
(2017) 3 SCC 646 referred to Para 7
(1983) 3 SCC 284 referred to Para 8
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 883 of
2019.
E From the Judgment and Order dated 23.11.2015 by the High Court
of Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 473 of
2015.
Sandeep Pathak, Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Utsav, Advs. for
the Appellants.
F
Rishabh Sancheti, Sanyat Lodha (For P. V. Saravana Raja), Advs.
for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
G
Leave granted.
1. Respondent no. 1 was appointed under the Rajasthan State
Sports Council on the post of Coach Grade-III on 20 March 1986. She
was thereafter promoted as Coach Grade-II on 22 February 1990 and
as Coach Grade-I on 10 January 1997.
H
RAJASTHAN STATE SPORTS COUNCIL v. SMT. UMA 587
DADHICH [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
2. On 27 February 2009, nine persons were promoted to the post A
of Sports Officer from the post of Coach Grade-I. Respondent No. 1
instituted a writ petition before the High Court against the decision of
the appellant to promote respondent No. 2 for vacancies falling in the
year 2003-2004.
3. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by an order B
dated 1 April 2015. In appeal, a Division Bench of the High Court
reversed the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
4. While reversing the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the
High Court has observed as follows:
“It is not in dispute that the criteria of seniority-cum-merit and C
merit for the purpose of promotion to the post of Sports Officer
was introduced by the Rajasthan State Sports Council Service
Rules, 2006. The criteria settled in the year 2006 by no stretch of
imagination could have been made applicable for the vacancy
that occurred prior to introduction of the Rules aforesaid.” D
5. It is this finding which forms the basis of the ultimate direction
that was issued by the Division Bench of the High Court to reconsider
the case of respondent No. 1 for promotion as Sports Officer against
vacancies of the year 2003-2004 by adopting the criteria applicable at E
the relevant time.
6. In order to complete the narration of facts, it would be necessary
to note that the earlier criterion for promotion to the post of Sports Officer
prior to the year 2006 was seniority. Thereafter, the criterion was altered
to seniority-cum-merit and merit. The High Court proceeded on the basis F
that the criterion prevalent in 2006 could not have been applied to prior
vacancies.
7. There is merit in the submission which has been urged on behalf
of the appellants that the respondent had no vested right to promotion
but only a right to be considered in accordance with the rules as they
G
existed on the date when the case for promotion was taken up. This
principle has been reiterated in several decisions of this Court. [See
H.S. Grewal Vs. Union of India1, Deepak Agarwal Vs. State of Uttar
1
(1997) 11 SCC 758
H
588 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 1 S.C.R.
A Pradesh2 and State of Tripura Vs. Nikhil Ranjan Chakraborty3 and Union
of India & Ors. Vs. Krishna Kumar & Ors.4]
8. The judgment in Y.V. Rangaiah Vs. Sreenivasa Rao5 dealt with
a situation where the rules required that the promotional exercise must
be completed within the relevant year. Rangaiah’s case(supra), has hence
B been distinguished in the judgments noted above.
9. Rule 9(4) of the Rajasthan State Sports Council Service Rules,
2006 on which reliance has been placed on behalf of the appellant does
not indicate that the vacancies must be filled in on the basis of Rules as
they prevail in the year in which they have occurred.
C Rule 9(4) is in the following terms:-
“The appointing authority shall determine the vacancies of earlier
years, year wise which were required to be filled in by promotion,
if such vacancies were not determined and filled earlier in the
year in which they were required to be filled in.”
D
10. In this view of the matter, the direction which was issued by
the High Court is unsustainable.
11. We, however, clarify that in the event that respondent No. 1
has been promoted in the meantime in regular course, this order will not
affect the merits of that promotion.
E
12. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned judgment
of the High Court is set aside.
13. There shall be no order as to costs.
F
Divya Pandey Appeal allowed.
G
2
(2011) 6 SCC 725
3
(2017) 3 SCC 646
4
CA@SLP(C) No. 26541 of 2014 decided on 14 January 2019.
H 5
(1983) 3 SCC 284
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "promotion"Sign in to search