Explore the detailed legal analysis conducted by the court on the implementation of recruitment rules in promotions. This case summary delves into the complexities of applying specific rules to promotions in the context of employment law. Discover the nuances of the court’s examination of the rules and their impact on the case at hand.
Facts
- Appellants were reverted to the post of Junior Hindi Translators during the pendency of the appeals.
- Corrigendum was issued removing the restriction of pay under FR-35 as per revised eligibility conditions.
- Appellants contended that the 2002 Rules were never in operation, relying on the judgment in BSNL vs Mishri Lal & Ors.
- High Court allowed the review petitions, restored the original petitions and directed to maintain status quo.
- High Court found no plea raised regarding the non-operation of 2002 Rules before the Tribunal.
- High Court dismissed the matters on 04.11.2011 but found that the 2002 Rules were indeed implemented.
- High Court dismissed the Original and Transferred Applications, set aside the Tribunal’s order, and allowed the Original Petitions.
- Appointments made in 1988-1989 were dismissed by the Court in 2018.
- BSNL filed a special leave petition which faced a delay of 2225 days.
- Appellants were promoted as Assistant Director (Official Language) on ad hoc basis in 1993-2000.
- Tribunal allowed Transfer Applications in 2010 against which OP (CAT) and WP were filed by BSNL.
- 2005 Rules were notified superseding 2002 Rules, leading to multiple corrigendums and review petitions.
- Local officiating arrangements and promotions on an ad hoc basis were allowed until regular appointees were available.
- Assistant Director (Official Language) Recruitment Rules, 2002 were notified in 2002.
- Writ petitions were transferred to the Court amid various rule changes and promotions on an officiating basis.
- Vacancies for Assistant Director (OL) were filled by Senior Hindi Translators/Junior Hindi Translators as a one-time measure.
- Review petitions were filed seeking review of judgments and orders with significant delays.
- BSNL filed a Contempt Petition before the Tribunal directing the Chief General Manager to appear.
Also Read: Electoral Malpractices in Mayor Election
Issue
- The crux of the matter in these appeals is whether the 2002 Rules were implemented by the respondents in relation to the appellants.
- The key issue at hand is the application of the 2002 Rules to the appellants by the respondents.
- The main contention revolves around whether the respondents effectively applied the 2002 Rules to the appellants.
Also Read: Balancing Power and Transparency: Electoral Bonds Struck Down, Disclosure Mandated
Arguments
- Appellants argued that the High Court made an error in concluding there was an apparent error in the earlier order
- They disagreed with the High Court’s interpretation of the recruitment Rules 2002
- Appellants claimed that the 2002 Rules were in operation and promotions should be governed by them
- They argued that vacancies arose before the enforcement of the 2002 Rules giving them a vested right
- Respondents relied on the judgment in Mishri Lal to support the High Court’s review decision
- They contended that Mishri Lal showed the 2002 Rules were never in operation, contradicting the appellants’ stance
- Appellants emphasized that the 2002 Rules were implemented and acted upon in the cases
- They argued that the grant of enhanced pay scales under the Rules indicated their implementation
- The High Court’s decision to review its earlier judgment was disputed by the appellants
- The High Court was urged that it was justified in reviewing its earlier order
- There is no merit in the appeals as a result of this justification
Also Read: Recall of Resolution Plan Approval: Legal Analysis
Analysis
- The judgment analyzed the application of the 2002 Rules and 2005 Rules in relation to promotions and appointments of Assistant Directors (OL) in BSNL.
- It was found that the 2005 Rules were issued after the enforcement of the 2002 Rules, and promotions were regulated accordingly.
- The 2002 Rules were noted to have been in force for more than three years before the issuance of the 2005 Rules.
- The case involved the regularisation of promotions made on an ad hoc basis prior to the implementation of the 2002 Rules.
- Observations from earlier judgments like Mishri Lal were considered, but the distinct facts of the current case were emphasized.
- The High Court’s misapplication of the Mishri Lal judgment was highlighted as it did not align with the specific circumstances of the appellants’ case.
- Various corrigenda and review petitions were discussed in the context of regularisation of promotions and adherence to the relevant recruitment rules.
- The judgment pointed out the misreading of the ratio in Mishri Lal and its incorrect application to the present case by the High Court.
- The evolution of rules, promotions, and appointments in BSNL was traced from the 2002 Rules to the subsequent 2005 Rules.
- The order in question could not have been reviewed or recalled by the High Court due to subsequent orders of promotions on ad hoc or officiating basis.
- The clause regarding ‘restriction of pay under FR-35’ was deleted by issuance of a corrigendum, leading the High Court to rightly sustain the order of the Tribunal.
- The 2002 Rules may not have been applied in Uttar Pradesh but have been implemented in the Kerala region where the appellants work.
Decision
- Merit found in the appeals
- Appeals allowed
- Impugned judgments and orders set aside
- Respondents directed to give effect to the judgment of the High Court
- Recalling of any reversion orders
- Extending monetary benefits to the appellants
- Cases to be considered under Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS)
- Disposal of all pending interlocutory applications
Case Title: MEDINI C Vs. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED (2021 INSC 517)
Case Number: C.A. No.-005811-005814 / 2021
