Abdul Jawad M.F vs R. Raj Pradeep .
- SCC(2018) 9 SCC 781
- Neutral2018 INSC 670
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
When promotions to a post are granted in excess of the eligible quota under applicable recruitment rules, even when initially made on an ad hoc basis, they cannot be regularized with effect from the date of ad hoc promotion; regularization of such promotions violates the quota limit and is impermissible in law. Where ad hoc promotions in excess of the eligible quota are set aside in judicial proceedings, officers who have rendered decades of service and who are among the few remaining in office shall not be reverted as a matter of judicial discretion and equity, notwithstanding that the promotions were irregular and exceeded the eligible quota. Persons who have already retired from service shall not have their pensions disturbed by the implementation of an order setting aside their irregular promotions, even where those promotions were in excess of the eligible quota.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5203/2016
ABDUL JAWAD M.F & ANR. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
R. RAJ PRADEEP & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
WITH C.A. NO. 5204-5205/2016 C.A. NO. 6055/2016 C.A. NO. 6059/2016 C.A. NO. 6057/2016 C.A. NO. 6056/2016 C.A. NO. 8460/2016
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J.
1. The issue raised in all these appeals pertains to
the irregular promotions granted to 97 Upper Division
Clerks in the Kerala Panchayat Department to the post
of Executive Officer, Grade-I. No doubt all those
Signature Not Verified promotions were ad hoc but the problem arose when the Digitally signed by NARENDRA PRASAD Date: 2018.08.07 17:46:01 IST Government sought to regularize them with effect from Reason:
the date of ad hoc promotion. In respect of 61
1 persons, the Government order dated 19.07.2012
followed by the order dated 23.08.2012 were the
subject matter of challenge before the Kerala
Administrative Tribunal (for short, ‘the Tribunal’).
There were other issues pertaining to the seniority
as well. The Tribunal vide order dated 06.03.2015
held that the regularization of 61 promotions were
impermissible under the law, being in excess of the
eligible quota. As far as regularization granted to
36 UDCs are concerned, they had already been
eliminated by Government Order dated 17.06.2010. The
order passed by the Tribunal has been affirmed by the
Division Bench of the High Court as per the impugned
order dated 11.03.2016. The said judgment is under
challenge in these appeals.
2. When these matters came up before this Court,
after extensively hearing the parties, the following
order was passed on 29.03.2017:-
“On 13.05.2016, this Court inter alia passed the following order:-
“Leave granted.
Status quo, obtaining as on today, shall be maintained by the parties.”
The order, as above, shall stand modified as follows:
2 The Government is free to take steps to implement the orders passed by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal dated 6.3.2015, as affirmed by the High Court in the impugned order dated 11.3.2016. But, in case reversion of any officer is to be effected in the process, the same shall be done only after obtaining orders from this Court.
A Report on the steps thus taken shall be submitted before this Court, within three months.
Post on 12.07.2017. “
3. The said order was passed taking into
consideration one of the submissions that in view of
efflux of time the implementation of the judgment may
not cause any serious impact on the existing
incumbents, as far as reversion is concerned.
4. We have heard Mr. Gopal Shankarnarayan, learned
counsel appearing for the appellants, in C.A.
Nos.5203/2016 & 8460/2016, Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned
senior counsel appearing for the State and learned
counsel for the other contesting respondents
extensively today also.
5. There cannot be any dispute on the factual
scenario that all the 97 promotions were in excess of
the eligible quota. There cannot also be any dispute
3 on the fact that all the promotions given to the
incumbents were ad hoc. Therefore, when a final
seniority list is to be drawn up, a call has to be
taken as to the fate of the ad hoc promotions. In
our view, the view taken by the Tribunal, as affirmed
by the High Court, cannot be faulted since 97
incumbents could not have occupied the positions on
regular basis, since it was in excess of the eligible
quota.
6. We have ascertained that there cannot be more
than two incumbents out of 61 in office as of now.
Having regard to the decades of service rendered by
them, we direct that they shall not be reverted in
the process of implementation of the judgment. It is
also directed that the incumbents who have already
retired from service shall not be disturbed as far as
their pension is concerned.
7. We make it clear that in the process of
implementation of the impugned judgment, in case any
of the individual incumbents has any other grievance,
it will be open to him/her to pursue the same in
appropriate proceedings.
8. Subject to the above, these appeals are
dismissed.
4
9. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
10. There shall be no orders as to costs.
.......................J. [KURIAN JOSEPH]
.......................J. [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL] NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 02, 2018.
5
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free