Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J.
Leave granted.
Respondent no. 1 was appointed under the Rajasthan State
Sports Council on the post of Coach Grade-III on 20 March
1986. She was thereafter promoted as Coach Grade-II on 22
February 1990 and as Coach Grade-I on 10 January 1997.
On 27 February 2009, nine persons were promoted to the
post of Sports Officer from the post of Coach Grade-I.
Respondent No. 1 instituted a writ petition before the High
Court against the decision of the appellant to promote
respondent No. 2 for vacancies falling in the year 2003-2004.
The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by
an order dated 1 April 2015. In appeal, a Division Bench of the
High Court reversed the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
While reversing the judgment of the learned Single Judge,
the High Court has observed as follows:
“It is not in dispute that the criteria of
seniority-cum-merit and merit for the purpose of
promotion to the post of Sports Officer was
introduced by the Rajasthan State Sports Council
Service Rules, 2006. The criteria settled in the
year 2006 by no stretch of imagination could have
been made applicable for the vacancy that
occurred prior to introduction of the Rules
aforesaid.”
It is this finding which forms the basis of the ultimate
direction that was issued by the Division Bench of the High
Court to reconsider the case of respondent No. 1 for promotion
as Sports Officer against vacancies of the year 2003-2004 by
adopting the criteria applicable at the relevant time.
In order to complete the narration of facts, it would be
necessary to note that the earlier criterion for promotion to
the post of Sports Officer prior to the year 2006 was
seniority. Thereafter, the criterion was altered to seniority-
cum-merit and merit. The High Court proceeded on the basis that
the criterion prevalent in 2006 could not have been applied to
prior vacancies.
There is merit in the submission which has been urged on
behalf of the appellants that the respondent had no vested
right to promotion but only a right to be considered in
accordance with the rules as they existed on the date when the
case for promotion was taken up. This principle has been
reiterated in several decisions of this Court. [See H.S. Grewal
Vs. Union of India 1, Deepak Agarwal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 2
and State of Tripura Vs. Nikhil Ranjan Chakraborty3 and Union of
India & Ors. Vs. Krishna Kumar & Ors.4]
The judgment in Y.V. Rangaiah Vs. Sreenivasa Rao 5 dealt
with a situation where the rules required that the promotional
exercise must be completed within the relevant year. Rangaiah’s
case (supra), has hence been distinguished in the judgments
noted above.
Rule 9(4) of the Rajasthan State Sports Council Service
Rules, 2006 on which reliance has been placed on behalf of the
appellant does not indicate that the vacancies must be filled
in on the basis of Rules as they prevail in the year in which
they have occurred.
Rule 9(4) is in the following terms:-
“The appointing authority shall determine the
vacancies of earlier years, year wise which were
required to be filled in by promotion, if such
vacancies were not determined and filled earlier
in the year in which they were required to be
filled in.”
In this view of the matter, the direction which was
issued by the High Court is unsustainable.
4 CA@SLP(C) No. 26541 of 2014 decided on 14 January 2019.
We, however, clarify that in the event that respondent
No. 1 has been promoted in the meantime in regular course,
this order will not affect the merits of that promotion.
The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned
judgment of the High Court is set aside.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(HEMANT GUPTA) NEW DELHI, January 21, 2019
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 492/2017
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 23-11-2015 in DBCSA No. 473/2015 passed by the High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan At Jodhpur)
RAJASTHAN STATE SPORTS COUNCIL & ANR. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
SMT. UMA DADHICH & ANR. Respondent(s)
Date : 21-01-2019 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
For Petitioner(s)
Mr. Sandeep Pathak, Adv.
Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, AOR
Mr. Utsav, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
Mr. Rishabh Sancheti, Adv.
Mr. Sanyat Lodha, Adv.
for Mr. P. V. Saravana Raja, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed reportable
judgment.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)