RAMA RAO AND ORS.versusM.G. MAHESHWARA RAO AND ORS.

A                             RAMA RAO AND ORS.
                                         v.
                      M.G. MAHESHWARA RAO AND ORS.

                                 AUGUST 27, 2007

B              [H.K. SEMA AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN,JJ.J


          Service Law-Promotion of employees of Administrative Tribunal-
    Rules prescribing qualification of graduation for promotion-Stenographer
C   and Ministerial cadre being the feeder cadre to the promotional post-
    App/icat ion by stenographer cadre challenging the prescription of
    qualification-Tribunal on judicial side altering the qualifications-On
    administrative side, Tribunal promoting the employees from stenographer
    cadre-Application by employees of Ministerial cadre before the Tribunal
    challenging the judicial as well as administrative decision of the Tribunal-
D   Application dismissed-Writ Petition-High Court setting aside promotions
    of non-graduate stenographers and declining to· interfere with promotion of
    graduate stenographers-On appeal, held: There is nothing unreasonable in
    prescribing qualifications for promotion-The order of Tribunal altering the
    qualification prescribed by Rules was unsustainable-The Tribunal had acted
E   beyond its jurisdiction in doing so-The entire promotions of stenographers
    are liable to be set aside-The proper course is to undertake fresh exercise
    of promoting the officers from both the streams in accordance with Rules.

           Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985-s.19-0rder of Tribunal challenged
    by ji·esh application u/s 19-By the affected persons not made party in the
F   previous application-Held: Affected persons had the· locus standi to move
    the application-Locus standi.

           Appellant-stenographers in Karnataka Administrative Tribuna~ filed an
    application before the Tribunal challenging the prescription of degree and
    test as qualifications for promotion to the post of Junior Judgment Writer in
G   the Recruitment Rules. Post of Assistant (Ministerial cadre) was also a feeder
    post for promotion to the post of Junior Judgment Writer. Assistants were
    not made party to the application. The tribunal allowed the applications and
    altered the qualifications prescribed. Thereafter, the Vice Chairman who had
    presided over the Bench, on administrative side proceeded to promote the

H                                        446
t
                      RAMARAOv. M.G.MAHESHWARARAO                              447
    stenographer on the basis of the qualification prescribed by him.                  A
          The Assistants, being aggrieved by the Judgment of the tribunal and as
    a consequence from the promotions to the stenographers, filed fresh
    applications u/s19 of Administrative Tribunals Act. Tribunal dismissed the
    applications. They filed Writ Petitions before High Court High Court allowed
    the Writ Petitions holding that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to alter the      B
    qualifications for promotion; and that the promotions were bad as the same
    was done on the basis of unauthorized interference with the Rules. However,
    High Court set aside Qnly the promotions of non-graduate stenographers and
    declined to interfere with the promotions of graduate stenographers. Hence
    the present appeals by non-graduate stenographers and by the Assistants.           C
          Stenographers contended that Assistants had no locus standi to move
    an application u/s 19 of the Act as they had not applied for modification of the
    previous order of the Tribunal; that High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain
    a proceeding against order of Administrative Tribunal as such jurisdiction
    was conferred on High Court subsequent to the date the order was passed by         D
    the Tribunal.

           Dismissing the appeals filed by stenographers and allowing the appeals
    filed by the Assistants, the Court

          HELD: 1.1. Assistants had the locus standi to move the application under     E
    Section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, before the Tribunal and
    seek reconsideration of the earlier decision passed by it without notice to
    them and to show that the said order required to be reconsidered or that it
    was not a legal or a proper one. It cannot be said that the assistants could not
    have approached the Administrative Tribunal with their grievance and the
    Tribunal could not have considered their grievance or gone back on its earlier     F
    decision. [Para 5) [451-G; 452-A, CJ

          K. Ajit Babu and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., (19971Supp3 S.C.R.
    56, relied on

          1.2. The fact that the jurisdiction of the High Court came to be             G
    recognized only later, cannot change the situation, since when the High Court
    entertained the Writ Petition, it had the jurisdiction to do so and it had
    jurisdiction also to consider what was the effect of the earlier order or the
    proceeding before it and whether the earlier order was legal and justified.
                                                                 LPara 5) [452-D)      H
    448                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2007) 9 S.C.R.

A       1.3. High Court rightly held that when it passed the order on 6.7.1994,
  the Administrative Tribunal had acted beyond jurisdiction in prescribing
  qualifications of its own while striking down what according to it was
  unreasonable provisions. There is nothing unreasonable prescribing
  qualifications of promotion as was done in this case and as rightly found by
  the High Court. Even ifthe relevant rules were liable to be struck down, it
B was not for the Administrative Tribunal to re-enact that Rule as it thought
  considered proper. Once that conclusion is reached and as has been found by
  the High Court, no invalidity could be found in the relevant rules for promotion,
  the obvious.consequence would be that all the promotions of the stenographers
  became illegal. In fact, the High Court in its judgment has considered the
C relevant aspects and has come to the conclusion that the decision dated
  6.7.1994 was unsustainable. (Para 7) (452-G; 453-A, BJ

         J.Ranga Swami v. Government ofAndhra Pradesh and Ors., AIR (1990)
    SC 535, referred to.

D         1.4. The decision dated 6.7.1994 rendered by the Administrative Tribunal
    was totally unsustainable and the question of promotion has to be on the basis
    of the Rules as they stood prior to the interference with it by the Tribunal.
                                                                  (Para 9) [453-E)

          2. Interests of justice would be sub-served only ifthe entire promotions
E   of stenographers made on the basis of the Rules framed by itself by the
    Administrative Tribunal on its judicial side are set aside. The proper course
    to adopt is to undertake a fresh exercise of promoting the officers from both
    streams in accordance with the Rules framed in that regard.
                                                              [Para I I) (454-B, CJ
F         3. In view of the order of the High Court that the stenographers who
    had been promoted and whose promotions have now been cancelled, need not
    be visited with the penalty of having to refund the higher salaries and
    allowances they have received in the promotional posts. Even while cancelling
    all the promotions and directing a fresh exercise to be undertaken, it is
G   directed that no recovery shall be made from the salaries paid to the
    stenographers in regard to the period they have worked in their promoted
    posts on the ground that their promotions have now been quashed.
                                                             [Para 12) (454~D, E)

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 7474-7477 of
H
    1
        RAMARAOv. M.G.MAHESHWARARAO [BALASUBRAMANYAN,J.] 449

        2003.                                                                             A
             From the final Judgment and Order dated 18.06.2002 of the High Court
        of Kamataka at Bangalore in Writ Petition Nos. 16143-16146/1997 (S-KAT).

                                              WITH
                                                                                           B
                C.A. Nos. 7478-7481 of2003.

             Raju Ramehandran, Naveen R.Nath, Anitha Shenoy, Lalit Mohini Bhat
        and Hetu Arora for the Appellants.

                Ms. Kiran Suri for the Respondents.                                        c
                Sanjay R.Hegde for the State.

                The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

               P.K. BALASUBRAMANY AN, J. I. By the judgment under appeals the
        High Court partly allowed the writ petition filed before it by the employees       D,
        in the ministerial cadre of the Kamataka Administrative Tribunal. Writ Petition
        Nos.16143-1646 of 1997 challenged the decision of the Administrative Tribunal
        dismissing an application filed by them before the Tribunal. Feeling aggrieved
        by the decision rendered by the High Court in the writ petitions both sides
        are before us with these appeals. Civil Appeal Nos.7474-7477 of2003 is filed       E
        by those belonging to the Stenographer Cadre and Civil Appeal Nos.7478-
        7481 of2003 filed by the ministerial cadre.

            2. For convenience, hereafter, the parties are referred to as Stenographers
        and Assistants.
                                                                                           F
               3. The Kamataka Administrative Tribunal was constituted on 6.10.1986.
        The Government of Karnataka sanctioned the cadre strength and framed the
        Cadre and Recruitment Rules, 1986. The appointments of stenographers were
        made in the year 1988. The Government published on 23.9.1992 a new set of
        draft rules. The stenographers filed objections to the draft rules. On 3 I .5. I 993 G
        the Government published the Recruitment Rules. Though the stenographers
        made representations to the Government, their representations were rejected.
        Thereupon they filed application Nos. 2250-2252 of I 993 and 2253-2258 of
        I 998 before the Administrative Tribunal challenging the prescription of degree
        and test as qualifications for promotion to the post of Junior Judgment Writer
        in the Rules. It is seen that the assistants or any one that would be affected H




T
                                                                                         ---t
    450                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     {2007] 9 S.C.R

A   from that branch by an adjudication, were not impleaded in the proceeding.
    The Administrative Tribunal allowed the applications and quashed the Rules
    in part Essentially, what the Administrative Tribunal -did was to alter the
    qualifications provided for promotions in the cadre of stenographers by doing
    away with the higher qualifications prescribed. The striking down of the Rules
    was done by a Bench presided over by the Vice-Chairman of the Administrative
B   Tribunal. Thereafter.the vice-chairman proceeded to promote the stenographers
    on the basis of the qualification prescribed by him on the judicial side. The
    assistants felt aggrieved by the promotions thus given. They, therefore,
    moved application Nos.3585-3592 of 1995 and other connected applications
    before the Administrative Tribunal challenging the decision of the
C   Administrative Tribunal dated 6.7.1994 as also the promotions given to the
    respondents in those applications, the promoted stenographers. The
    applications were opposed on various grounds. By order dated 21.4.1997, the
    Administrative Tribunal dismissed the applications. It was ch~llenged by the
    Assistants before the High Court in the writ petitions already referred to. The
    High Court, by the judgment under appeal, allowed the writ petitions in part
D   holding that the Administrative Tribunal had no jurisdiction to alter the
    qualifications for promotions as it had done and since promotions were made
    on the basis of this unauthorized interference with the Rules prescribing
    qualifications for promotions, the promotions were bad. As a logical follow
    up, instead of setting aside all the promotions, the High Court set aside only
E   the promotions of non-graduate stenographers and declined to interfere with
    the promotions of the graduate st_enographers. The non-graduate
    stenographers are aggrieved by the setting aside of the judgment of the
    Administrative Tribunal and the quashing of the promotions of non-graduates.
    The Assistants are aggrieved by what they call the failure of the High Court
    to give effect to its own judgment and in not setting aside the illegal promotions
F   given to all stenographers- including the graduate stenographers. That is how
    these sets of appeals are before us.

          4. Logically it would be proper to deal first with the appeal filed by the
    stenographers against the judgment of the High Court. For, if we were to
G   agree with the contentions of the appellants therein, the judgment of the High
    Court setting aside the order of the Administrative Tribunal will have to be
    set aside and in that case no further orders would be required except to
    restore the order of the Tribuna,I. Only if we were to dismiss the appeals filed
    by the Assistants and were to uphold the decision of the High Court on the
    main aspect, we need consider the grievance of the assistants that the High
H   Court should have, as a consequence of its own decision, set aside the
RAMARAOv. M.G.MAHESHWARARAO[BALASUBRAMANYAN,J.] 451

promotions of graduate stenographers as well, since those were illegal              A
promotions. We will, therefore, first deal with the appeals by the stenographers.

       5. It is argued on behalf of the stenographers that the High Court was
in error in setting aside the order of the Administrative Tribunal dated 6. 7 .1994
when the assistants had not taken any step to get that order reviewed or
modified. It is submitted that only after the decision in the case of L. Chandra B
Kumar v. Union of India and Ors., [1997] 3 SCC 261 that the High Court got
jurisdiction to entertain a proceeding against the decision of the Administrative
Tribunal and when the order was passed on 6. 7 .1994 by the Administrative
Tribunal, only an appeal could have been filed to the Supreme Court and in
that situation, in the subsequent writ petition, the High Court was not C
competent to quash the order of the Administrative Tribunal dated 6.7.1994.
It is also contended that in any subsequent application filed by the assistants
under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act (for short "the Act"),
the Administrative Tribunal could not hmre considered the correctness or
otherwise of the decision it had rendered earlier and which had become final
and consequently the High Court while entertaining the writ petition D
challenging the dismissal of the subsequent application by the Administrative
Tribunal, could not have set aside the order earlier made on 6.7.1994 on the
application filed by the stenographers. This contention raised, was met by the
High Court by pointing out that even though the assistants belong to a
different cadre, since there was a confluence of the two streams leading to E
the promotional posts, the assistants had locus standi to file an application
under Section I 9 of the Act in which, to ventilate their grievances they could
canvass the correctness of the decision earlier rendered on 6. 7 .1994 by the
Administrative Tribunal. The High Court referred to the decision in K. Ajit
Babu and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., [1997] Supp 3 S.C.R. 56 to find
that the proper procedure to adopt by persons situated like the Assistants F
in this case and who were not made parties to a prior decision which had
effect on their career, was to move an application under Section 19 of.the Act.
In that decision, this Court noticed that even though the judgme~t of an
Administrative Tribunal may only be a judgment in personam, occasionally,
it could also operate as a judgment in rem and those affected by it had the
right to approach the Tribunal again with an application under Section 19 of G
the Act when they are affected as a consequence of the earlier decision and
are entitled to seek reconsideration of the view taken in the earlier decision.
The High Court, following it, held that the assistants had the locus standi to
move the application under Section 19 of the Act before the Tribunal and seek
reconsideration of the earlier decision passed by it without notice to them and     H
    452                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2007] 9 S.C.R.

A   to show that the said order required to be reconsidered or that it was not a
    legal or a proper one. We see no reason not to accept the reasoning adopted
    by the High Court. After all, the assistants who were not impleaded in the
    earlier proceeding, must have.an avenue to ventilate their grievances. This
    Court has indicated that that avenue is an approach to the Tribunal and that
    was in a case in which the very same Act was involved. This Court had also
B   pointed out, what the Administrative Tribunal could do in such a situation.
    If this were not the position, the assistants would be able to say that since
    they were not parties to the earlier proceedings, they were not bound by it
    arid they are entitled io ignore the decision therein and that the said decision
    cann0t affect them since it would be a decision that is void in law for non-
C   compliance with the rules of natural justice. There is, therefore, no grace in
    the submissions that the assistants could not have approached the
    Administrative Tribunal with their grievance and the Tribunal could not have
    considered their grievance or gone back on its earlier decision. We are in
    agreement with the approach made by the High Court and the conclusion
    arrived at by it and hence have no hesitation in overruling this contention.
D   The argument that the jurisdiction of the High Court came to be recognized
    only later, cannot change the situation, since when the High Court entertained
    the writ petition it had the jurisdiction to do so and it had jurisdiction also
    to consider what was the effect of the earlier order or the proceeding before
     it and whether the earlier order was legal and justified in the context of the
E   decision of this Court in Ajit Babu's case (supra).

          6. It is then contended that the Administrative Tribunal was justified in
    passing the order dated 6. 7 .1994 since the qualifications prescribed for
    promotion were unreasonable. According to the stenographers, the Rules
    clearly provided for double promotion and since the assistants had not
F   challenged the validity of the rules either before the Administrative Tribunal
    or the High Court or in this Court, the actions taken as a consequence, were
    also not open to challenge in the light of the decisions of this Court in Karam
    Pal and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., {1985] 2 SCC 457 and Mohan Sing
    and Ors. v. 'State of Punjab and Ors., {1995] 4 SCC 151.

G          7. We agree with the High Court that when it passed the order on
    6. 7.1994, the Administrative Tribunal had acted beyond jurisdiction in
    prescribing qualifications of its own .while striking down what according to
    it was unreasonable provisions. First of all, there is nothing unreasonable
    prescribing qualifications of promotion as was done in this case and as rightly
H   found by the High Court. Secondly, even if the relevant rules were liable to
"i-
      RAMA RAOv. M.G. MAHESHWARARAO [BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.] 453

      be struck down, it was not for the Administrative Tribunal to re-enact that         A
      Rule as it thought considered proper. Once that conclusion is reached and
      as has been found by the High Court no invalidity could be found in the
      relevant rules for promotion, the obvious consequence would be that all the
      promotions of the stenographers became illegal. In fact, the High Court in its
      judgment has considered the relevant aspects and has come to the conclusion         B
      that the decision dated 6. 7.1994 was unsustainable. We do not think it necessary
      to reiterate the reasons given by the High Court which has also noticed the
      decision of this Court in J. Ranga Swami v. Government of Andhra Pradesh
      and Ors., AIR ( 1990) SC 535. We approve of the findings of the High Court.

            8. We also find it somewhat unpalatable that the same vice-chairman,          C
      in the absence of the Cha inn an, sat on the judicial side, quashed the rule and
      prescribed his own qualifications for promotion of stenographers and on the
      administrative side implemented that decision and promoted the stenographers.
      It would have been better if he had awaited the appointment of a Chairman
      and left it to the Chairman to implement the direction issued by the
      Administrative Tribunal earlier. A thing that is to be done has not only to be      D
      done properly but also appear to be done properly. But this is only incidental
      and has no relevance to the question falling for decision except for the
      contention that the Vice-Chairman has no power to appoint, with which we
      will deal later, if it becomes necessary.

             9. Suffice it to say that we agree with the conclusion of the High Court     E
      that the decision dated 6. 7 .1994 rendered by the Administrative Tribunal was
      totally unsustainable and the question of promotion has to be on the basis
      of the Rules as they stood prior to the interference with it by the Tribunal.

            I 0. Thus, we find no merit in the appeals filed by the stenographers and     F
      the cancellation of their promotions on the basis they did not possess the
      requisite qualifications for promotion as per the Rules.

            1 1. We then come to the appeals filed by the assistants. Their grievance
      is that the High Court having found that the order of the Administrative
      Tribunal dated 6. 7 .1994 was unsustainable and having found that the               G
      amendments brought to the rules by it were also illegal and unsustainable,
      should have followed up that finding by setting aside the promotions of all
      the stenographers and ought to have ordered a fresh consideration of the
      question of promotions taking into account both the feeder channels. We see
      considerable force in this submission. What the High Court has done is to
                                                                                          H
    454                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2007] 9 S.C.R

A try and avert the cancellation of certain stenographers who had graduate
    qualification, a qualification prescribed by the Rules. But having found that
    the very order granting promotion, based as it was on a wrong footing and
    that required interference in the light of its decision, the High Court ought
    not to have shied away from giving effect to its own conclusion. After all,
B   graduate stenographers, if they are entitled to promotions as per the Rules,
    would secure the promotion by the fresh exercise undertaken. We have also
    indicated that the whole method adopted by the vice-chairman was not proper
    and the promotions were made improperly, was an irresistible conclusion. In
    the light of all this, we think that the interests of justice would be sub-served
    only if the entire promotions of stenographers made on the basis of the Rules
C   framed by itself by the Admjnistrative Tribunal on its judicial side are set
    aside. To that extent we find substance in the appeal filed by the assistants.

          12. We think that the proper course to adopt is to undertake a fresh
   exercise of promoting the officers from both streams in accordance with the
   Rules framed in that regard. But as the High Court held, the stenographers
D who had been promoted and whose promotions have now been cancelled,
   need not be visited with the penalty of having to refund the higher salaries
 ~ a;1d allowances they have received in the promotional posts. Therefore, even
   while cancelling all .the promotions and directing a fresh exercise to be
   undertaken, we direct that no recovery shall be made from the salaries paid
E to the stenographers in regard to the period they have worked ·in their
   promoted posts on the ground that their promotions have now been quashed.

           13. In the result, we dismiss Civil Appeal Nos.7474-7477 of2003 and
     allow the Civil Appeal Nos.7478-7481 of 2003. We substantially affirm the
     decision of the High Court but set aside that part of it by which it declined
F   to set aside the promotions of graduate stenographers. We direct the                --..-
     undertaking of a fresh exercise regarding pr~motions of those who are qualified
     in accordance with the Rules by the concerned as expeditiously as possible.
     We direct that there shall be no recovery from the salaries and allowances
    paid to the stenographers whose promotions are cancelled by the High Court
    and by us while they worked in their promoted posts. The parties are dir~cte.d
G   to suffer their respective costs in this Court.
    K.K.T.                       Civil Appea Nos. 7474-7477 of2003 dismissed
                              and Civil Appeal Nos. 7478-7481 of2003 allowed.