1996 JTR(SC) 2231
1997 AIR(SC) 1357 ; 1997 AIR(SCW) 1465 ; 1996 11 JT 677 ; 1997 2 LLN 586 ; 1996 9 Scale 712 ; 1997 3 SCC 395 ; 1997 SCC(L&S) 821 ; 1997 2 SCT 117 ; 1997 1 SLR 577 ; 1997 KHC 779 ; 1997 5 Supreme 641
1997(5) Supreme 641
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Kuldip Singh and S. Saghir Ahmad, JJ.
Union of India & Ors. -Appellants
versus
C.K. Dharagupta & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 16941 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 8843 of 1992)
Decided on 31-12-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : P.P. Malhotra, Sr. Advocate, T.C. Sharma and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates.
For the Respondents : S.R. Bhat, Advocate.
Act
Referred
:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.309
DEFENCE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATION JUNIOR SCIENTIFIC OFFICER RECRUITMENT AMENDMENT RULES : .
(A) The impugned rules operate within the framework of Article 309 of the Constitution, where the power of the State to make rules regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of its servants is subjected to judicial review. The Defence Research and Development Organisation Junior Scientific Officer Recruitment Amendment Rules, 1988, enacted under this provision, were held to have a retrospective operation from March 8, 1980, which directly impinged upon the binding nature of a prior Tribunal judgment delivered under the Defence Research and Development Organisation Junior Scientific Officer Recruitment Rules, 1980 and the Defence Science Service Rules, 1967. The interplay between the rule-making power under Article 309 and the doctrine of finality of administrative decisions, particularly those issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal, was thus the crux of the statutory interpretation required.
(B) A binding decision of a Central Administrative Tribunal cannot be nullified or abrogated by subsequent rule-making unless the rules contain a clear validating clause. The rule of subject-wise seniority governs promotion to specific cadres where such rules exist, and general seniority rules cannot be applied retrospectively to defeat a final judgment. The impugned rules could only operate prospectively for vacancies arising after the date of the judgment and not retrospectively to undo completed promotions.
Facts of the case:
The promotion of a Senior Scientific Assistant to Junior Scientific Officer in the Defence Research and Development Organisation was challenged. The promotion was initially governed by the Defence Science Service Rules, 1967, on the basis of subject-wise seniority. Subsequently, the 1980 Rules and then the 1988 Amendment Rules changed the basis to general seniority. The Tribunal had directed that the promotion be re-done according to the 1967 rules, and this judgment was delivered in 1987. The Union of India sought to enforce the 1988 Rules retrospectively to override this judgment.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal correctly held that the 1988 Rules could not nullify the binding 1987 judgment. The 1988 Rules were found to be inoperative retrospectively to undo a completed judicial process, as this would impermissibly override the authority of the Tribunal. The relief granted by the Tribunal was strictly confined to the specific applicant, and could not be extended to other members of the cadre or other individuals.
Issues:
Whether the Defence Research and Development Organisation Junior Scientific Officer Recruitment Amendment Rules, 1988, can have retrospective effect to nullify a binding judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal; whether the Tribunals directions are binding only on the parties or extend to the entire cadre; and whether a person other than the party to the original proceeding can claim the benefit of the judgment.
Ratio Decidendi:
A binding administrative decision is protected from being abrogated by subsequent retrospective rules under Article 309, and must be given effect to until such time as a valid, non-retrospective amendment is made. The scope of relief granted by a Tribunal judgment is strictly limited to the parties and specific facts of the case, and cannot be extrapolated to others.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed, and the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated December 20, 1991, is upheld. The Union of India is bound to comply with the Tribunals directions to re-do the promotion in accordance with the subject-wise seniority rule for the specific individual concerned, and the impugned 1988 Rules cannot be applied retrospectively to undo the judgment.
(A) The impugned rules operate within the framework of Article 309 of the Constitution, where the power of the State to make rules regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of its servants is subjected to judicial review. The Defence Research and Development Organisation Junior Scientific Officer Recruitment Amendment Rules, 1988, enacted under this provision, were held to have a retrospective operation from March 8, 1980, which directly impinged upon the binding nature of a prior Tribunal judgment delivered under the Defence Research and Development Organisation Junior Scientific Officer Recruitment Rules, 1980 and the Defence Science Service Rules, 1967. The interplay between the rule-making power under Article 309 and the doctrine of finality of administrative decisions, particularly those issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal, was thus the crux of the statutory interpretation required.
(B) A binding decision of a Central Administrative Tribunal cannot be nullified or abrogated by subsequent rule-making unless the rules contain a clear validating clause. The rule of subject-wise seniority governs promotion to specific cadres where such rules exist, and general seniority rules cannot be applied retrospectively to defeat a final judgment. The impugned rules could only operate prospectively for vacancies arising after the date of the judgment and not retrospectively to undo completed promotions.
Facts of the case:
The promotion of a Senior Scientific Assistant to Junior Scientific Officer in the Defence Research and Development Organisation was challenged. The promotion was initially governed by the Defence Science Service Rules, 1967, on the basis of subject-wise seniority. Subsequently, the 1980 Rules and then the 1988 Amendment Rules changed the basis to general seniority. The Tribunal had directed that the promotion be re-done according to the 1967 rules, and this judgment was delivered in 1987. The Union of India sought to enforce the 1988 Rules retrospectively to override this judgment.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal correctly held that the 1988 Rules could not nullify the binding 1987 judgment. The 1988 Rules were found to be inoperative retrospectively to undo a completed judicial process, as this would impermissibly override the authority of the Tribunal. The relief granted by the Tribunal was strictly confined to the specific applicant, and could not be extended to other members of the cadre or other individuals.
Issues:
Whether the Defence Research and Development Organisation Junior Scientific Officer Recruitment Amendment Rules, 1988, can have retrospective effect to nullify a binding judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal; whether the Tribunals directions are binding only on the parties or extend to the entire cadre; and whether a person other than the party to the original proceeding can claim the benefit of the judgment.
Ratio Decidendi:
A binding administrative decision is protected from being abrogated by subsequent retrospective rules under Article 309, and must be given effect to until such time as a valid, non-retrospective amendment is made. The scope of relief granted by a Tribunal judgment is strictly limited to the parties and specific facts of the case, and cannot be extrapolated to others.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed, and the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated December 20, 1991, is upheld. The Union of India is bound to comply with the Tribunals directions to re-do the promotion in accordance with the subject-wise seniority rule for the specific individual concerned, and the impugned 1988 Rules cannot be applied retrospectively to undo the judgment.
JUDGMENT
Kuldip Singh, J.-Special leave petition.
2. The question for consideration before the Central Administrative Tribunal (The Tribunal) was whether the Defence Research and Development Organisation (Junior Scientific Officer) Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 1988 (1988 Rules) notified on March 14, 1988 and enforced with effect from March 8, 1980 have the effect of nullifying the judgment dated March 17, 1987 of the Tribunal in R.P. Joshi v. Union of India & Ors. (A. No. 497/86).
3. The Tribunal answered the question in the negative and against the appellant. This appeal by the Union of India is against the judgment of the Tribunal dated December 20, 1991.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We are of the view that in the facts and circumstances of this case no fault can be found with the impugned judgment of the Tribunal. One R.P. Joshi in A. No. 497/86 had approached the Tribunal with the contention that the promotion of a Senior Scientific Assistant (SSI) to the cadre of Jr. Scientific Officer (JSO) could only be governed by the Defence Science Service Rules, 1967 (1967 Rules) and the Defence Research and Development Organisation Jr. Scientific Officers Recruitment Rules, 1980 (1980 Rules) had no application. Under the 1967 Rules the promotion was to be made on the basis of subject-wise seniority whereas under the 1980 Rules the basis was the general seniority. Joshi contended before the Tribunal that the 1967 Rules, having not been repealed by the 1980 Rules, the promotion from SSI to JSO could only be made under the 1967 Rules in accordance with subject-wise seniority. The Tribunal accepted the contention and issued the following directions :
"In the circumstances we allow this application and direct the respondents 1 to 3 to re-do the process of promotion completed in August, 1984, in accordance with law subject-wise promotion as expeditiously as possible. The order effecting promotion on the basis of the recommendation of the DPC which met on 17th and 18th August, 1984 appearing in Annexure, `S and `U are quashed. However, till a fresh process of promotion in accordance with rules of subject-wise promotion is completed persons already been promoted as JSO s need not be disturbed."
5. We have examined the judgment of the Tribunal in A. No. 497/86. Joshi was the only applicant before the Tribunal. In the judgment there is no reference to any other official except Joshi. We have no hesitation in holding that the Tribunal granted relief to Joshi alone and nobody else. The directions in the judgment (quoted above) though give an impression that it is applicable to whole of the cadre but when the judgment is read as a whole the impression is repelled. We confine the judgment to Joshi alone.
6. The 1988 Rules specifically repeal the 1967 Rules to the extent the 1980 Rules are applicable. Since the 1988 Rules were made operative retrospectively with effect from March 8, 1980, the Union of India declined to give benefit to Joshi of the judgment of the Tribunal in A. No. 497/86 dated March 17, 1987. This is how the present Application No. 1543/88 came to be heard and decided by the Tribunal.
7. V.S. Malimath, Chairman, speaking for the Bench, relying upon the judgments of this Court in P.S. Mahal and Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.1 and A.V. Nachani & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr.2, has come to the conclusion that the binding decision of the Tribunal dated March 17, 1987 in Joshi s case could not be rendered non-est by the 1988 Rules. The reasoning is as under :
"In the light of these binding decisions it is clear that the rule making authority cannot exercise powers conferred on them under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution retrospectively so as to nullify the binding decision of this Tribunal rendered in O.A. No. 497/86 directed the respondents to re-do the process of promotion completed in August, 1984 in accordance with the rule of subject-wise promotion by the impugned rule. The power is now taken to do away with the rule of subject-wise promotion with retrospective effect from 8th March, 1980. If the impugned rule is operated from 8th March, 1980 it is obvious that it would result in nullifying the effect of the judgment of this Tribunal. This is clearly impermissible in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court which we have discussed above. Hence, we have no hesitation in taking the view that the respondents are bound to comply with the judgment of this Tribunal. This is clearly impermissible in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court which we have discussed above. Hence, we have no hesitation in taking the view that the respondents are bound to comply with the judgment of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 497/86 and to effect promotion to the cadre of JSOs from the cadre of SSAs applying the rule of subject-wise promotion till 17.3.1987 the judgment of this Tribunal. In other words the impugned rule would be enforceable only in regard to the promotions to be made to vacancies arising after 17.3.1987. Promotions till that date have to be made in accordance with the rule of subject-wise promotion."
8. We are of the view that in the facts and circumstances of this case, especially in the absence of a validating clause in the 1988 Rules, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment of the Tribunal.
9. We, however, clarify that in view of our finding that the judgment of the Tribunal dated March 17, 1987 in A. No. 497/86 gives relief only to Joshi, the benefit of the said judgment of the Tribunal cannot be extended to any other person. The respondent C.K. Dharagupta (since retired) is seeking benefit of Joshi s case. In view of our finding that the benefit of the judgment of the Tribunal dated March 17, 1987 could only be given to Joshi and nobody else even Dharagupta is not entitled to any relief.
10. The appeal is disposed of. No costs.
Appeal disposed of accordingly.
*******