| CITATION | 2021 SCC ONLINE SC 157 |
| DATE OF JUDGEMENT | 5th March, 2021 |
| COURT | Supreme Court of India |
| APPELLANT | Vinod Prasad Raturi & Ors. |
| RESPONDENT | Union of India & Ors. |
| BENCH | L. Nageswara Rao S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ. |
INTRODUCTION
This case revolves around a dispute concerning the allocation of State Civil Service (SCS) officers following the reorganization of the State of Uttar Pradesh into the State of Uttarakhand under the Uttar Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000. The central issue is whether the High Court was correct in directing a review Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for the purpose of considering Respondent No.4 for earlier allotment in the Indian Administrative Services (IAS) cadre. The appellants challenge this decision, arguing it affects their seniority without giving them an opportunity to be heard.
FACTS OF THE CASE
- The State of Uttar Pradesh was bifurcated to create the State of Uttarakhand under the Uttar Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000. This necessitated the allocation of civil service officers between the two states. Guidelines were issued by the Central Government on 30.09.2000 to facilitate the allocation process.
- A tentative final allocation list was circulated to the employees, inviting objections if they were dissatisfied with their proposed allocations. A State Advisory Committee was formed to prepare a list of State Civil Service (SCS) Officers for allocation based on seniority. Several officers, including Appellant No.2, objected to their allocation to Uttarakhand, leading to writ petitions being filed in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. This led to the High Court staying the allocation orders during the pendency of these petitions.
- On 22.04.2003, the Central Government issued a final allocation list in accordance with Section 73 of the Act. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the allocation, prompting Appellant No.2 and others, including Respondent No.4, to file Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) in the Supreme Court. An interim order was passed on 07.01.2004 to maintain the status quo.
- In 2011, the State of Uttarakhand informed the Government of India about 11 vacancies in the IAS cadre. Appellant No.2 withdrew his SLP and joined the Uttarakhand state service on 15.04.2011, subsequently getting promoted to the IAS cadre in 2011.
- SLPs filed by Respondent No.4 were dismissed on 12.02.2015, and a review petition was also rejected. Respondent No.4 was finally allocated to Uttarakhand on 09.06.2015 and relieved from Uttar Pradesh on 28.09.2016, joining Uttarakhand on 01.10.2016. A seniority list was issued on 20.02.2017, and Respondent No.4 raised objections regarding his seniority. He was promoted to IAS on 09.01.2018 but with the year of allotment as 2010, while his juniors were given 2005.
- Respondent No.4 filed a writ petition seeking a review DPC for consideration of his promotion based on seniority, which the High Court allowed, directing a review DPC within six months.
ISSUES RAISED
- Was the High Court correct in directing a review DPC without hearing the affected parties, namely the appellants?
- Can Respondent No.4 claim retrospective seniority and request a review DPC to adjust his seniority after remaining in Uttar Pradesh by virtue of interim orders?
- Is Respondent No.4 entitled to a review of promotions made while he was serving in Uttar Pradesh?
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTS
The appellants argued that the High Court’s direction to conduct a review DPC was made without giving them an opportunity to be heard, violating the principles of natural justice. They were not made parties to the writ petition filed by Respondent No.4. It was contended that Respondent No.4 did not make any attempts to assert his claims to IAS promotion or object to the promotions of the appellants while he was in Uttar Pradesh, which indicates acquiescence to the situation. The appellants maintained that disturbing the settled seniority and promotions of officers who were promoted to IAS before Respondent No.4 joined Uttarakhand would be unjust, especially since Respondent No.4 was serving in Uttar Pradesh out of his volition. Respondent No.4 was considered for IAS promotion in Uttar Pradesh, and thus his claim for promotion in Uttarakhand was deemed belated.
CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENTS
Respondent No.4 argued that his allocation to Uttarakhand dated back to 09.11.2000, and he was entitled to be considered for seniority and benefits from that date. The delay in allocation should not prejudice his rights. It was highlighted that the Union of India supported his plea for conducting a review DPC, acknowledging the delays caused due to pending litigation. Respondent No.4 claimed that his request for revising his seniority and conducting a review DPC was legitimate, especially since his juniors were promoted before him. He submitted that the High Court’s direction for a review DPC was a mere procedural directive, not an adjudication affecting the appellants’ rights, and thus should not be interfered with by the Supreme Court.
JUDGMENT
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment directing the conduct of a review DPC. The Court held that The High Court erred in passing an order affecting the appellants’ seniority without giving them an opportunity to be heard, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court emphasized that settled seniority matters, particularly those that have resulted in promotions, should not be disturbed at the behest of Respondent No.4, who served in Uttar Pradesh during the relevant period. Respondent No.4 cannot claim retrospective promotion to IAS in Uttarakhand after voluntarily serving in Uttar Pradesh without pursuing claims for IAS promotion in Uttarakhand during that time. The Court acknowledged the delay in Respondent No.4’s allocation to Uttarakhand but noted that he chose not to challenge the promotions made during his tenure in Uttar Pradesh. Therefore, his claims for adjustment in seniority were not tenable.
ANALYSIS
The Supreme Court’s judgment underscores the importance of procedural fairness and natural justice, especially in matters involving seniority and promotions. By setting aside the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that Decisions affecting individuals’ rights, especially concerning employment and seniority, must involve hearing all affected parties to prevent undue prejudice. The judgment illustrates the judiciary’s reluctance to unsettle matters that have been decided and acted upon, particularly when significant time has elapsed, and individuals have arranged their affairs based on those decisions. The Court critically examined Respondent No.4’s conduct, noting his lack of timely objection or proactive measures to assert his rights, which played a pivotal role in deciding against his claims for retrospective seniority. The decision highlights the need for restraint under Article 136 of the Indian Constitution when the impugned order of the High Court does not reflect a clear violation of legal principles but rather addresses procedural directives.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court’s decision in this case reflects a careful balance between individual rights and procedural integrity. By setting aside the High Court’s direction for a review DPC, the Court safeguarded the principles of natural justice and ensured that the settled expectations and seniority of the appellants were not unjustly disturbed. The judgment serves as a reminder of the critical importance of timely actions and the duty of the courts to protect the settled interests of individuals while ensuring procedural fairness in judicial processes.
REFERENCES
1. https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/416/416_2019_38_1501_26707_Judgement_05-Mar-2021.pdf
2. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/2753047/
This article is written by Riya Singla, student of Himachal Pradesh National Law University, Shimla (HPNLU); 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.
