Summary
Seven additional posts of Labour Officer were sanctioned in Himachal Pradesh in July 2006, when the 1966 Rules provided for filling the post only by promotion; in November 2006 new Rules introduced direct recruitment for 25% of the posts, and three officers were appointed through the Public Service Commission. Labour Inspectors in the feeder cadre contended that vacancies arising before the amendment had to be filled under the old Rules, and the High Court agreed on the authority of Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao. The Supreme Court allowed the State's and the direct recruits' appeals and overruled Rangaiah.
Issues
- Whether vacancies in public posts that arose before an amendment of the recruitment rules must be filled under the unamended rules, as stated in Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao, or under the rules in force when the vacancies are considered for filling.
- Whether a government employee has any vested right, outside the rules governing the service, to be considered for promotion against vacancies under repealed rules, and whether the State may consciously decide to fill such vacancies under amended rules as part of cadre restructuring.
Provisions considered
- Articles 309, 310 and 311 (Part XIV), Constitution of IndiaEvery person serving the Union or a State holds office during the pleasure of the President or Governor; the power to make rules under Article 309 is subject to Article 310, and the pleasure doctrine rests on public policy (Tulsiram Patel). Government service is a status, not a contract, whose rights and obligations flow from statute and rules that the Government may alter unilaterally (Roshan Lal Tandon); there are no rights outside the rules, and the State's policy decisions must satisfy Article 14. (¶¶ 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 7.1, 7.2, 8, 9, 10, 11)
- Recruitment to Labour Officer: promotion only (1966 Rules) vs 75% promotion/25% direct recruitment (2006 Rules), Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1966 and H.P. Labour and Employment Department, Labour Officers, Class-II (Gazetted) Ministerial Services R&P Rules, 2006The 2006 Rules came into force on notification and contain no provision for considering the respondents under the 1966 Rules; the respondents therefore had no right to have the pre-amendment vacancies, including the seven new posts, filled by promotion alone. The creation of posts and twelve labour zones followed by the amendment was a cadre-restructuring policy that justified filling the posts under the new Rules. (¶¶ 1.3, 1.4, 38.1, 38.2, 39.1, 39.2)
Held
- Rangaiah turned on a mandatory rule requiring an annual panel of approved candidates that was not prepared in time; its observation that vacancies occurring before amended rules are governed by the old rules identified no vested right and was not laid down as an invariable principle, yet it came to be construed as a general rule and followed in several decisions without examining the constitutional position of services under the State. (¶¶ 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 12.1, 15.2, 16.2, 20.1)
- Flowing from the status of a government servant: tenure is at pleasure for public good; recruitment, conditions of service, promotion and seniority are governed exclusively by rules framed and alterable unilaterally by the Government; there is no right to be appointed but only to be considered fairly under the rules in force; and the Government too is bound by its rules and subject to judicial review. (¶¶ 10, 11)
- Fifteen decisions distinguishing Rangaiah — including K. Ramulu, Chanan Ram, G. Venkateshwara Rao, Delhi Judicial Services Association, Deepak Agarwal, Krishna Kumar and Uma Dadhich — establish that there is no rule of universal application that vacancies must be filled under the law existing when they arose; the right is to be considered under the rules in force on the date of consideration; the Government may take a conscious, fair and reasonable policy decision not to fill vacancies under repealed rules, including for cadre restructuring; the creation of posts does not oblige their immediate filling; and absent a statutory duty the State cannot be directed to consider pre-amendment vacancies. (¶¶ 23.2, 24.2, 25.2, 26.2, 29.2, 32.2, 34.2, 36, 37.1, 37.2)
- The statement in Y.V. Rangaiah that vacancies which occurred prior to the amended rules would be governed by the old rules does not reflect the correct proposition of law governing services under Part XIV of the Constitution and is overruled; the rights and obligations of persons serving the Union and the States are to be sourced from the rules governing the services. (¶ 37.3)
- The 2006 Rules having come into force on notification without any provision for applying the 1966 Rules, the respondents could claim no consideration under the old Rules; alternatively, the State's decision to restructure the cadre by creating posts and zones and introducing direct recruitment justified filling the vacancies under the new Rules, so the High Court's direction, which swept in even the three direct-recruitment posts, was set aside. (¶¶ 38.1, 38.2, 39.1, 39.2, 40)
Result
Appeals allowed; the Himachal Pradesh High Court's judgment of 28.12.2009 in CWP No. 3028 of 2008 directing that vacancies be filled under the 1966 Rules set aside, the appointments of the three direct recruits upheld, and the proposition in Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao that pre-amendment vacancies are governed by the old rules overruled. No order as to costs.