Supreme Court of India
RAJASTHAN STATE SPORTS COUNCIL & ANR. versus SMT. UMA DADHICH & ANR. on 21 January 2019
2019 INSC 62[2019] 1 S.C.R. 585
[2019] 1 S.C.R. 585
RAJASTHAN STATE SPORTS COUNCIL & ANR.
v.
SMT. UMA DADHICH & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 883 of 2019)
JANUARY 21, 2019
[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 SportsCouncil as Coach Grade-III in 1986 and was thereafter promotedas Coach Grade-II in 1990 and Coach Grade-I in 1997 – Ninepersons were promoted to the post of Sports Officer from the postof Coach Grade-I – Respondent No.1 challenged the decision ofthe appellant to promote respondent No. 2 for vacancies falling inthe year 2003-2004 – Dismissed by Single Judge of High Court –Division Bench reversed the judgment holding that the criteria ofseniority-cum-merit and merit for the purpose of promotion to thepost of Sports Officer was introduced by the 2006 Rules andtherefore, the criteria prevalent in 2006 could not have been madeapplicable to prior vacancies – On appeal, held: Respondent hadno vested right to promotion but only a right to be considered inaccordance with the rules as they existed on the date when the casefor promotion was taken up – Further, r.9(4) of the 2006 Rules,relied on by the appellant, does not indicate that the vacancies mustbe filled on the basis of Rules as they prevail in the year in whichthey have occurred – Direction issued by the High Court isunsustainable.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
Held: 1.1 The respondent had no vested right to promotionbut only a right to be considered in accordance with the rules asthey existed on the date when the case for promotion was takenup. [Para 7][587-G]
1.2 Rule 9(4) of the Rajasthan State Sports Council ServiceRules, 2006 on which reliance has been placed on behalf of theappellant does not indicate that the vacancies must be filled in onthe basis of Rules as they prevail in the year in which they haveoccurred. The direction which was issued by the High Court is
Page 1 of 3
A
B
C
DE
F
G
H
Aunsustainable. It is however, clarifed that in the event thatrespondent No. 1 has been promoted in the meantime in regularcourse, 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]
BH.S. Grewal v. Union of India (1997) 11 SCC 758;Deepak Agarwal v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2011) 6 SCC725 : [2011] 4 SCR 149; State of Tripura v. NikhilRanjan Chakraborty (2017) 3 SCC 646; Union of India& Ors.v. Krishna Kumar & Ors. SLP(C) No. 26541 of2014 decided on 14 January 2019; Y.V. Rangaiah v.CSreenivasa Rao (1983) 3 SCC 284 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 883 of2019.
EFrom the Judgment and Order dated 23.11.2015 by the High Courtof Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 473 of2015.
Sandeep Pathak, Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Utsav, Advs. forthe 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 StateSports Council on the post of Coach Grade-III on 20 March 1986. Shewas thereafter promoted as Coach Grade-II on 22 February 1990 andas Coach Grade-I on 10 January 1997.
H
RAJASTHAN STATE SPORTS COUNCIL v. SMT. UMADADHICH [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
2. On 27 February 2009, nine persons were promoted to the postof Sports Officer from the post of Coach Grade-I. Respondent No. 1instituted a writ petition before the High Court against the decision ofthe appellant to promote respondent No. 2 for vacancies falling in theyear 2003-2004.
3. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by an orderdated 1 April 2015. In appeal, a Division Bench of the High Courtreversed the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
4. While reversing the judgment of the learned Single Judge, theHigh Court has observed as follows:
“It is not in dispute that the criteria of seniority-cum-merit andmerit for the purpose of promotion to the post of Sports Officerwas introduced by the Rajasthan State Sports Council ServiceRules, 2006. The criteria settled in the year 2006 by no stretch ofimagination could have been made applicable for the vacancythat occurred prior to introduction of the Rules aforesaid.”
5. It is this finding which forms the basis of the ultimate directionthat was issued by the Division Bench of the High Court to reconsiderthe case of respondent No. 1 for promotion as Sports Officer againstvacancies of the year 2003-2004 by adopting the criteria applicable atthe relevant time.
6. In order to complete the narration of facts, it would be necessaryto note that the earlier criterion for promotion to the post of Sports Officerprior to the year 2006 was seniority. Thereafter, the criterion was alteredto seniority-cum-merit and merit. The High Court proceeded on the basisthat the criterion prevalent in 2006 could not have been applied to priorvacancies.
Page 2 of 3
7. There is merit in the submission which has been urged on behalfof the appellants that the respondent had no vested right to promotionbut only a right to be considered in accordance with the rules as theyexisted on the date when the case for promotion was taken up. Thisprinciple has been reiterated in several decisions of this Court. [SeeH.S. Grewal Vs. Union of India1, Deepak AgarwalVs. State of Uttar A
B
CD
EF
G
APradesh2 and State of TripuraVs. Nikhil Ranjan Chakraborty3 and Unionof India & Ors.Vs. Krishna Kumar & Ors.4]
8. The judgment in Y.V. Rangaiah Vs. Sreenivasa Rao5 dealt witha situation where the rules required that the promotional exercise mustbe completed within the relevant year. Rangaiah’s case(supra), has henceBbeen 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 doesnot indicate that the vacancies must be filled in on the basis of Rules asthey prevail in the year in which they have occurred.
CRule 9(4) is in the following terms:-
“The appointing authority shall determine the vacancies of earlieryears, year wise which were required to be filled in by promotion,if such vacancies were not determined and filled earlier in theyear in which they were required to be filled in.”
D
10. In this view of the matter, the direction which was issued bythe High Court is unsustainable.
11. We, however, clarify that in the event that respondent No. 1has been promoted in the meantime in regular course, this order will notaffect the merits of that promotion.E
12. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned judgmentof the High Court is set aside.
13. There shall be no order as to costs.
F
Divya Pandey
Appeal allowed.
G
H
3 (2017) 3 SCC 646
4 CA@SLP(C) No. 26541 of 2014 decided on 14 January 2019.
5 (1983) 3 SCC 284
Page 3 of 3
Loading citations and judicial treatment…