| Citation | 2024 Lawsuit (SC) 74 |
| Date of judgement | 29 January 2024 |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Appellant | Director General of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) |
| Respondent | J.K. Prakash and others |
| Bench | Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Sandeep Mehta. |
Introduction:
The Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision was challenged in an appeal by the Director General of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR). Two employees’ promotions to the position of Under Secretary were revoked by the High Court on the grounds that they had violated the 1982 Council of Scientific and Industrial Research Administrative Services (Recruitment & Promotion) Rules (Statutory rules). The verdict issued on May 28, 2019, by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in which the court declined to intervene with the Order issued on December 17, 2018, regarding CWP No. 20984/2016, while exercising its review jurisdiction. This appeal was filed in accordance with Indian Constitution Article 136, which says: The Supreme Court may, at its discretion, provide special permission to appeal from any judgment, decree, resolution, sentence, or order rendered by any court or tribunal operating within the borders of India in any cause or matter.
Senior Advocate Jay Savla appeared on behalf of the respondents, while Senior Advocate Narender Hooda represented the appellant.
Facts of the Case:
- In an earlier ruling, the High court granted the writ petition brought by respondent number 1, invalidating the promotion of respondent numbers 2 and 3 to the post of Under Secretary on the grounds that it had violated the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research Administrative Services (Recruitment & Promotion) Rules, 1982.
- Later the appellant-CSIR challenged the ruling of the High Court, arguing that respondent no. 1 did not meet the requirements outlined in the statute to be promoted to the position of Under Secretary because he had never carried out the responsibilities of a Section Officer on his own.
- After examining the factual and legal context, the High Court concluded that respondent no. 2 and 3 had been promoted because of certificates they had received on March 1, 2011, which attested to their performance of Section Officer duties in the year prior to the DPC, i.e. March 5, 2011.
- During the oral arguments (which were supported by written submissions), the appellant’s knowledgeable counsel brought attention to the certificates that respondent no. 2 and 3 possessed, granting them the advantage of one year of experience as Section Officers in exchange for a promotion to the position of Under Secretary. Examining these certificates reveals that respondent numbers 2 and 3 were not formally appointed as Section Officers; instead, their services were used as such on attachment. It should be observed that the appellant did not challenge respondent no. 1’s relevant argument in its reply before the High Court, despite respondent no. 1 having been designated as a Section Officer by order dated March 15, 2004.
- In accordance with the statutory regulations, there was no obstacle to respondent No. 1’s promotion through selection to the position of Under Secretary. Given the aforementioned facts, the court believed that the High Court had correctly overturned the appellant’s decision to deny Respondent No. 1 a promotion to the position of Under Secretary.
- Respondent No. 1 retired on July 31, 2019, while the case was still pending.
Issues Raised:
- The primary question presented in this civil appeal before the Supreme Court was whether the ruling rendered by the High Court on May 28, 2019, was valid. It was a high court review of its jurisdiction in which the court declined to intervene with the Order issued in CWP No. 20984/2016 on December 17, 2018.
- The issue at hand was whether respondent no. 2 and 3’s promotion to the position of Under Secretary violated the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research Administrative Services (Recruitment & Promotion) Rules, 1982.
- To determine if respondent no. 1 qualified under the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research Administrative Services (Recruitment & Promotion) Rules, 1982, in order to be promoted to the position of Under Secretary.
Contentions of Appellant:
CSIR appealed the High Court’s ruling, arguing that the worker was ineligible for a promotion to the Under Secretary position because he had never carried out Section Officer responsibilities independently and, as a result, did not meet the requirements outlined in the statute. In order to be elevated to the position of Under Secretary, the two employees were granted the benefit of one year of experience as Section Officers, as evidenced by certificates that CSIR put on file. however, The Court observed that neither of them had been formally appointed as Section Officers; rather, these certifications showed that the aforementioned services were used as Section Officers upon attachment.
Before the learned Tribunal, the appellant made a further argument, stating that respondent number one couldn’t get rated as “Good,” while respondent numbers two and three were rated as “Very Good,” and that the elevation to the position of Under Secretary should be made based on merit. We do not, however, need to be distracted by this element of the case, as the High Court intervened in respondent nos. 2 and 3’s promotion, finding them unfit for the position.
Contentions of Respondent:
The respondent no. 1 earlier filed a writ petition in which he denied the promotion of respondent no. 2 and 3, citing a breach of the statutory rules of administration. Additionally, the High court’s decision favoured him and overturned respondent no. 2 and 3’s promotion. However, the respondents’ previously stated arguments were taken into account when the CSIR appealed in the Supreme Court and its decision was drawn up accordingly.
Regarding respondent no. 1, the High Court noted the Order dated March 15, 2004, which officially designated the respondent as a Section Officer. The respondents did not dispute this fact in their response to the writ suit.
Judgement:
The Punjab and Haryana High Court’s ruling to overturn the promotion that the CSIR had given to its two workers was upheld by the Supreme Court without intervention.
“There was no impediment for the promotion by selection of respondent No. 1 to the post of Under Secretary under the statutory rules,” said Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta. With the aforementioned information in mind, Supreme Court believed that the High Court correctly overturned the appellant’s decision to refuse respondent no. 1 a promotion to the position of Under Secretary.
The Supreme Court clarifies that this decision will only apply to Respondent No. 1’s case and will not be regarded as a precedent. As stated above, the appeals are denied. If there are any pending applications, shall stand disposed of.
Analysis:
As seen by the aforementioned examples, failing to abide by the particularly designed regulations can negatively impact both your daily and professional life. Respondents 2 and 3 departed from their positions as Under-secretary due to a lack of a formal appointment letter, even though they met the requirements to work in the higher position and had the necessary experience. It practically took eight years to determine the issue, as we can see from the fact that the appeal was filed in 2016 and the ultimate ruling was rendered in 2024. Even respondent number one retired in 2019 while the matter was still under consideration. Both the Indian Constitution’s Article 136 and the writ petition that were used in this specific case benefited and prolonged the litigation’s duration. Nonetheless, these actions were necessary to ensure that the verdict reflected fairness.
Conclusion:
The supreme court, being the Apex court of the land, is responsible for interpreting the law, as is customary. Even the High Court made the right decision after carefully examining the facts and the law. The supreme court’s decision to refrain from overturning the high court’s reasoning and decision indicates that appeals will not always receive favourable hearings. Most of the time, the Supreme Court takes into account both the rulings and the reasoning of its subordinate courts. However, maintaining the system that allows people to use their right to petition the highest courts is necessary to guarantee that there is no ignoring for the law by lower courts and that those who are unfortunate receive equal justice.
References:
https://www.latestlaws.com/latest-caselaw/2024/january/2024-latest-caselaw-53-sc
https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2020/9652/9652_2020_3_1503_49957_Judgement_29-Jan-2024.pdf
This Article is written by Anjali S. Raut, student at Dr. Ambedkar College of Law, Nagpur: Intern at Legal Vidhiya.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
0 Comments