Supreme Court of India
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS.versusA.K. RAJORIYA AND ANR.
- Citation
- 1992 INSC 132
- Decided
- 28 April 1992
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- S RATNAVEL PANDIAN
Holding
Rule 6(2) and Schedule II prescribe the maintenance of the overall proportion of promotees and direct recruits in the cadre, not a 50‑50 split for each vacancy.
Summary
The case concerned the interpretation of Rule 6(2) of the Madhya Pradesh State Industries (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1985, which stipulates that the number of persons recruited by promotion or transfer shall not exceed the percentage shown in Schedule II. The Directorate of Industries had 57 Deputy Director posts, of which 28 were promotees and 21 were direct recruits; eight vacant posts were filled solely by direct recruitment. Assistant Directors argued that Rule 6(2) required each vacancy to be filled 50 % by promotion and 50 % by direct recruitment, and that the appointments violated their right to promotion. The State contended that the rule merely mandates that at any time the proportion of promotees in the cadre must not exceed 50 %, and that the appointments were therefore valid. The Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal held that the rule applied to each vacancy, ordering that four of the eight posts be filled by promotion. The Supreme Court set aside that order, holding that the plain language of Rule 6(2) and Schedule II concerns the maintenance of the overall proportion in the cadre, not the allocation of individual vacancies. Consequently, the appeals were allowed and the Tribunal’s decision was vacated.
Issues considered
- Whether Rule 6(2) of the Madhya Pradesh State Industries (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1985, relates to the manner of filling each vacancy (50 % direct recruitment, 50 % promotion) or to maintaining the proportion of direct recruits and promotees in the total cadre strength.
- Whether the appointment of eight Deputy Directors solely by direct recruitment violated the right of Assistant Directors to promotion under the said rule.
Legislation cited
- Madhya Pradesh State Industries (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1985s. Rule 6(1), s. Rule 6(2)
Subjects
recruitment rulespromotioncadre proportionadministrative lawinterpretation of statutesservice recruitmentMadhya Pradesh
Judgment
A STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS.
v.
A.K. RAJORIYA AND ANR.
APRIL 28, 1992
B (S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN AND P.B. SAWANT, JJ.]
M.P. State Industries (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1985: Rule
\
6(2}-Schedule II: Interpretation of. )'--
c of-50%
Directorate of M.P. Industries-Deputy Directors-Recruitment
by Direct recruitment and 50% by Promotion-Held Rule 6(2) read
with Schedule II relates to maintenance of proportion between direct recruits
and promotees in the total strength of cadre-It does not pertain to filling up
of vacancies whenever they occur.
--
r
D Rule 6(1) of the Madhya Pradesh State Industries (Gazetted) Service -(
Recruitment Rules, 1985 provides that recruitment to the service shall be
(a) by direct recruitment (b) by promotion and (c) by transfer. Rule 6(2)
provides that the number of persons recruited by promotion or transfer
shall not at any time exceed the percentage shown in Schedule II of the
number of duty posts specified in Schedule I. Schedule II mentions that
E the percentage of the duty posts of Deputy Directors to be filled. in by pro-
·motion would be fifty and that to be filled by promotion would also be fifty.
In the Directorate of Industries of Madhya Pradesh the strength of
cadre of Deputy Directors was 57 at the relevant time. 28 posts were held
F by promotees and 21 by direct recruits. To conform to the provisions of
Rule 6(2) the Government filled the eight vacant posts of Deputy Directors
only by direct recruitment. The Respondent-Assistant Directors challenged
the said appointments contending that Rule 6(2) read with Schedule II
requires that whenever vacancies occur in the post of Deputy Director, they
-
should be filled in 50% by direct recuitment and 50% by promotion from
G the Assistant Directors and since all the eight vacancies were filled in only --r
by direct recruitment in violation of Rule 6(2) they were denied their legal
right to promotion to the post of Deputy Director. On behalf of the State
and directly recruited Deputy Directors it was contended that Rule 6(2)
read with Schedule II requires that the strength of cadre of Deputy
H Directors should at any point of time consist of not more than 50%
854
STATE OF M.P. v. A.K RATORIYA 855
~J.
promotees and the transferred employees and since at the relevant time A
28 incumbents were promotees and the other 21 incumbents were direct
recruits the direct recruitment of eight Deputy Directors was in conformity
with Rule 6(2).
The Madhya Pradesh State Tribunal held that Rule 6(2) requires
--( that 50% of the vacancies on every occasion should be filled by direct B
recruits and promotees respectively. Therefore, four out of the eight posts
of Deputy Directors should go to respondent-Assistant Directors for being'
filled in by promotion. Again~~ the order of the Tribunal.appeals were filed
--- ,,..,-
in this Court•
Allowing the appeal, this Court,
c
~-
HELD : 1. The impugned order of the Tribunal is unsustainable in '
law. Therefore, it is set aside. (858-E, 861-8)
2. Although the heading of Rule 6 is 'Methods of Recruitment' and D
sub-clause (1) of the said rule states that the recruitment to the service
shall be (a) by direct recruitment (b) by promotion and (c) by transfer,
the language of sub-clause (2) of the said rule is very clear. It states that
at no time the number of Deputy Directors recruited by promotion or
r- transfer, shall exceed the percentage shown in Schedule II, of the number
of Duty Posts specified in Schedule I. Schedule II mentions that the per-
centage of the duty posts to be filled in by promotion would be fifty. Thus,
E
- neither Rules 6(2) nor Schedule II refers to the vacancies to be filled in.
On the other hand, they speak of the percentage of direct recruits and pro·
motees to be maintained in the posts at any point of time. (859 F~H, 860-A]
F
There is no ambiguity in the language either of sub-clause (2) of Rule
"T
6 or of Schedule II ·referred to therein. On a plain reading of both the said
provisions, it is clear that the Rule does not pertain to the filling in of
vacancies when they occur but to the maintenance of the proportfon
between the direct recruits and promotees. The Rule requires that the
proportion between the two in the cadre or duty posts should be so
G
maintained that at no time those recruited either by promotion or transfer
exceed 50% of the duty posts or cadre strength. (860 A-BJ
).
Bishan Sarup Gupta v. Union of India and Ors., (1975) SCR Suppl.
491; Direct Recruit Class II Engb1eeri11g Officers' Association v. State of H
856 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992) 2 S.C.R.
A Maharashtra and Ors., (1990) 2 SCC 752, distinguished.
CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1875 of
1992.
From the Judgment a1;1d Order dated 4.5.1990 of the Madhya
B Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in Transferred Application
No.l of 1988.
).-- •..
WITH
c
Civil Appeal No. 1876 of 1992. .......
S.V. Deshpande, S.K. Agnibotri and S. Muralidbar for the Appel- r
lants. (
--f
Sakesh Kumar and Surya Kant for the Respondents.
D The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SAWANT, J. These two SLPs are directed against the judgment and
order dated 4th May, 1990 of the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative
Tribunal. Notices to the respondents in each of the SLPs were issued for
final hearing. After service of the notices and completion of the pleadings,
E the SLPs have come up for hearing before us today. Leave is granted in
both the SLPs. ~
F
2. The short question involved in these appeals is whether Rule 6(2)
of the Madhya Pradesh State Industries (Gazetted) Service Recruitment
Rules, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules") relates to the filling in
of the yacancies by recruitment from direct recruits and promotees or to
maintaining their proportion in the total strength of the cadre.
-
3. The relevant facts which have given rise to the aforesaid question - T- -
in the· present'case are as follows:
G The appellants in Appeal No 1875/1992 [arising out of SLP (C)
No.12998 of 1990] are the State Government, the Commissioner of In-
dustries and Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission while the respon-
-dents are the employees under the Directorate of Industries and at present
holding the post of Assistant Directors. In the companion appeal l ari~ing
....
H out of SLP (C) No.1807 of 1991). the appellants are the direct recruits to
STATE OFM.P. v. AK. RAJORIYA [SAWANT, J.] 857
the po5t of Deputy Directors and the respondents, besides the State of A
Ma~ya Pradesh, the Commissioner of Industries and Madhya Pradesh
Public Service Commission, are the Assistant Directors in service of the
Directorate of Industries who are also the. respondents in the accompany-
ing appeal. Prior to the present Rules of recruitment, there were in
operation the Madhya Pradesh State Industries {Gazetted) Service B
-( Recruitment Rules, 1965. These Rules among other things, provided that
recruitment to the post of Deputy Director, (Industries) ·and to the post of
the Joint Director of Industries would be made 100% by promotion from
the Assistant Directors of Industries and. the Deputy Directors of In-
dustries respectively. The present Rules, i.e., 1985 Rules made only one
change, namely, that they provided that the number of employees trans- C·
ferred and promoted to the po~ of Deputy director would not exceed 50%
of the cadre strength, the remfiltiing posts of Deputy Directors being filled
in by direct recruitment. The position with regard to the promotion to the
post of Joint Director of Industries from the posts of Deputy Directors
remained unchanged. In other words, the seniority list of Deputy Directors D
whether promoted, transferred or directly recruited would remain common
for the purpose of further promotion to the post of Joint Directors.
4. It is not disputed that initially there. were 66 posts of Deputy
Director of Industries in the Dire~torate of Industries. Nine of the said
posts were later transferred to other departments and hence the strength E
.r of the cadre of Deputy Director of Industries in the Directorate of In-
dustries was reduced to 57. It, however, appears that at the relevant time,
8 of the Deputy Directors from_ out of 57, were promoted to the post of
Joint Director. Hence, only 49 posts of Deputy Director were occupied by
the incumbents when in August, 1987 the Government issued an advertise- F
ment inviting applications from direct recruits for eight posts of Deputy
Director. Pursuant to the advertisement, eight direct recruits were
selected and appointed to the said posts.
5. About a year later, some of the Assistant Directors who are
respondents in both the appeals, filed a writ petition in the High Court of G
Madhya Pradesh challenging the said appointments. The writ petition was
subsequently transferred to the State Administrative Tribunal. It was con-
tended on behalf of the petitioner-Assistant Directors that Rule 6(2) of the
Rules read with Schedule II to the Rules requires that whenever vacancies
occur in the post of Deputy Director, they should be filled in 50% by H
858 SUPREME COURT REPORTS. [1992} 2 S.C.R.
A promqtions from the Assistant Directors and 50% by direct recruitment. >.-.
lnasm~ch as in the present case all the eight vacancies were filled in only
by direct recruitment, the said Rule 6(2)ras breached and the Assistant
Directors were denied their legal right d the promotion to the post of
Peputy Director. As against the said contention, it was contended on
behalf of the State and some of the directly recruited Deputy Directors
B who are appellants in Appeal No 1876/1992 (arising out of SLP No.1807 of }-
1991) that Rule 6(2) read with the Second Schedule requires that the
strength of the cadre of deputy Directors should at any point of time
coesist of not more than 50% promotees and the transferred employees.
Since at the relevant date, out of 49 Deputy Directors, 28 were promotees
_.......
. c and 21 were direct recruits, the Government had rightly recruited all eight t ~
recruits to conform to the provisions of the said Rule. It appears that when
the matter was first heard by the Tribunal by a Bench consisting of the --{
Chairman· and an administrative member of the Tribunal, they differed on
the interpretation of the said Rule and hence it was referred to the Judicial
Member. The learned Judicial Member agreed with the Administrative
D
Member and took the view that the Rule requires that 50% of the vacancies
on every occasion should be filled in by direct recruits and promotees
respectively. In that view, the Tribunal held that four of the said eight posts
of Deputy Directors have to go to the Assistant Directors for being filled
in by promotion. It is this order that is under challenge in both the appeals.
E
6. We are of the view that the impugned order of the Tribunal is ---,
unsustainable in law. The relevant provisions of Rule 6 are as follows:
"6. Methods of recruitment-(1] Recruitment to the service
after the commencement of these rules shall be by the following
......
F methods, namely: -
(a) by direct recruitment by selection.
-.,,-
(b) by promotion.
G (c) by transfer of persons who hold in a substantive capacity
such posts in such posts in such services as may be specified
in this behalf.
[2} The number of persons recruited under clause (b) or clause ·
~
H (c) of sub-rule (1) shall not at any time exceed the percentage
STATE OF M.P. v. AK. RAJORIYA (SAWANT, J.] 859
shown in Schedule II of the number of duty posts specified in A
Schedule I.
' xxxxxx"
The relevant provisions of Schedule II referred to in clause (2) of B
Rule 6 are as follows-
Percentage of the number of duty posts to be filled
Name of Name of Name of Total No. By Direct By promo- Remarks
Depart- Service Posts of duty recruitment tion of
ment posts vide rule
6(a)
substantive
member of c
the service
vide rule 6
(b)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Commerce Madhya Joint 6 Nil l:JO%
and Pradesh Director of D
Industry State Industries
Deptt. Industries
Gazetted
service
Deputy 66 50% 50%
Director of
Industries/ E
General
r Manager/
Develoment
Officer
- x x x x x x x x x x
Although the heading of Rule 6 is 'Methods of Recruitment' and
x
sub-clause (1) of the said Rule states that the recruitment to the service
x
F
shall be by the following methods, viz., (a) by direct recruitment (b) by
promotion and (c) by transfer, the language of sub-clause (2) of the said
Rule is very clear. It states that at no time the number of those recruited r
by promotion or transfer, shall exceed the percentage sh;srn in Schedu<~ ·-'
II, of the number of "Duty Posts" specified in Schedule I. Schedule I
specifies 66 posts. As has been pointed out earlier, on account of the
transfer of 9 of the said 66 posts, the duty posts which remained in the
cadre were 57. Schedule II mentions that the percentage of the duty posts
to the filled in by promotion would be fifty. Thus, neither Rule 6(2) nor H
860 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992] 2 S.C.R.
A Schedule II refers to the vacancies to be filled in. On the other hand, they
speak of the percentage of direct recruits and promotees to be maintained
in the posts at any point of time. There is no ambiguity in the language
either of sub-clause (2) of Rule 6 or of Schedule II referred to therein. On
a plain reading of both the said provisions, it is clear that the Rule does
not pertain to the filling in of vacancies when they oecur but to the
B maintenance of the proportion between the direct recruits and promotees.
The Rule requires that the proportion between the two in the cadre or duty
posts should be so maintained that at no time those recruited either by
promotion or transfer exceed 50% of the duty posts or cadre strength.
C 7. Shri Sake£h Kumar appearing for the respondent-employees in
both the appeals referred us to two decisions of this Court, namely, Bishan
Sarup Gupta v. Union of India and Ors., [1975] SCR Suppl. 491 and Direct
Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association v. State of Maharashtra
and Ors., [1990] 2 SCC 752 and contended that the recruitment rule in the
D present case is similar to those involved in the said two cases, and the
interpretation placed on the ru!e there, namely, that it referred to filling in
of the vacancies .and not to tJ1e maintenance of the proportion of direct
recruits and promotees in the cadre should be accepted in the present case
as well. The submission is misplaced. The language of the Rules in either
of the cases was not similar to that of Rule 6(2) in the present case. In B.S.
E Gupta's case (Supra) what fell for consideration was Ruh:: 4 of the Income-
Tax Officers Class I, Grade II Service Recruitment Rules of 1945. The
--~
Court held that the said Rule clearly referred lo recruitment of candidates
to vacancies in the service and the vacancies were such as the Government
wanted to fill in whatever may be the actual number of vacancies .. The
F Court also held that the said Rule entitled the promotees to l/3rd of
vacancies in any particular year whether or not there was recruitments to
fill in the rest 2/3rd of the vacancies in that year. There was also no
contention raised there that the said Rule related to the maintenance of
the proportion between the direct recruits and promotees in the total cadre
of the concerned officers. In Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers'
G Association Case (Supra) again on the language of Rule 1 of Bombay
Service of Engineers (Class I and Class II) Recruitment Rules; 1960, it was
observed in para 20 of the judgment that the ratio of 75 : 25 for appoint-
ment by nomination and promotion was fixed for the purpose of appoint-
ment and not for the strength in the service as was suggested on behalf of
H the appellants in that case. It was also pointed out that the proviso to the
'
l
STATE OF M.P. v. AK. RAJORIYA [SAWANT, J.] 861
~ said rule required that the said ratio in the appointment had to be main~ A
tamed as far as parcticable. Since the language of the Rule clearly referred
to the ratio at the time of appointment and not to the proportion between
the two to be maintained in the total number of posts as in our case. The
said decision is also not applicable to the facts of the present case.
--l In the view we have. taken, we set aside the impugned decision dated B
4th May, 1990 of the Tribunal. The appeals are accordingly allowed. In the
circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
T.N.A. Appeals allowed.
--
,.,--
(
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "recruitment rules"Sign in to search