31 December 1996
Supreme Court
Download

U.O.I. Vs C.K. DHARAGUPTA .

Bench: KULDIP SINGH,S. SAGHIR AHMAD
Case number: C.A. No.-016941-016941 / 1996
Diary number: 84689 / 1992


1

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: C.K.DHARAGUPTA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       31/12/1996

BENCH: KULDIP SINGH, S. SAGHIR AHMAD

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T      Special leave granted.      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 vs. Union of India & Ors. (A No.497/86).      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.      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 (l980  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 Joshi contended before the Tribunal  that the  1967 Rules, having not been repealed by the  1980 Rules, the promotion from SSI to JSO could only be made under the 1967 Rules in accordance with subject-wise seniority.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

2

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

    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      JSOs need not be dis-turbed."      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.      The 1988  Rules  specifically  repeal  the  1967  Rules extent the  1880Rules 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 decided by the Tribunal. V.S. Malimath,  Chairman, speaking  for the  Bench,  relying upon the  judgments of this Court in P.S. Mahal and Ors. vs. Union of  India &  Ors. AIR  1984 SC 1291 and A.V. Nachani & Anr. vs. Union of India & Anr. AIR 1982 SC 1126, 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 hesistation      in  taking   the  view   that   the      respondents  are  bound  to  comply      with   the    judgement   of   this      Tribunal.    This     is    clearly      impermissible in  view or  the  law      laid  down  by  the  Supreme  Court      which  we   have  discussed  above.

3

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

    Hence, we  have no  hesistation  in      taking   the    view    that    the      respondents  are  bound  to  comply      with the judgement 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  judgement  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."      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.      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.      The appeal is disposed of. No costs.