In a significant legal development, the court has issued a ruling to resolve a dispute related to promotion criteria in a case concerning direct recruits and promotees. The court’s detailed legal analysis focused on clarifying the regular appointment status of direct recruits, ensuring fairness in the promotion process, and addressing concerns regarding the promotion criteria. This judgment underscores the importance of adherence to regulations and principles of fairness in employment matters. The court’s decision aims to bring clarity and resolve long-standing issues, ultimately upholding the integrity of the promotion process.
Facts
- Dispute ended in 2015 with the Court’s decision in Civil Appeal No 390 of 2015.
- Court directed Board to provide letter of regular appointment to direct recruits from initial appointment date.
- Initial two years on probation to be treated as regular service.
- Consequential benefits to be given including regular scale of pay, increment, arrears of pay, seniority, etc.
- High Court of Himachal Pradesh passed a judgment on 04.03.2020 in favor of original writ petitioners, setting aside promotions of AAOs junior to them.
- High Court directed the Board to consider direct recruit AAOs for promotion to AOs from due dates of junior promotions.
- Amendment notification dated 02.01.2010 introduced new regulations for promotion to the post of AO and Sr. AO.
- Prior to the amendment, the post of AAO was filled 100% by promotion from Superintendent (D/A) without the requirement of passing SAS Part II exam.
- The amended notification required AAOs to have passed SAS Part II exam for promotion to the post of AO.
- A dispute arose between direct recruits and promotees regarding the promotion criteria.
- The High Court allowed the writ petitions of direct recruits challenging the amendment.
- The High Court directed the promotion criteria to be made applicable to Superintendents promoted as AAOs as well.
- The dispute also related to the promotion to the post of A.O., initially appointed on contract basis.
- Educational qualifications for direct recruits to the post of AAO included a post-graduate degree in Commerce, MBA(Fin.), or Chartered Accountancy/ICWA.
- Regulations in 2006 allowed for direct recruitment for the post of AAOs with a specified reservation percentage.
- Dispute arose regarding the regular appointment status of direct recruits to the post of AAO.
Also Read: Legal Analysis on Conviction Based on Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix
Arguments
- The High Court set aside the promotions of the appellants to the post of AO and Senior AO after a long period of working in those roles.
- The appellants were initially appointed to the post of AAOs/AOs through promotion, with passing SAS Part II examination being mandatory for the post of AAO.
- Number of chances were given to direct recruits to pass SAS Part II examination.
- The Board amended the Regulations to include passing of SAS Part II examination as a requirement for promotion to the post of AO from the post of AAO.
- The passing of SAS Part II examination was deemed necessary by the Board for promotion to the higher post of AO.
- The High Court held the amendment notification dated 02.01.2010, requiring passing of SAS Part II examination for promotion to the post of AO, as arbitrary.
- The appellants, who were promoted AAOs then promoted as AOs, opposed the High Court’s decision to set aside their promotions.
- Arguments were made in favor of protecting the promotions of the appellants who have been working on the promotional posts for a long time.
- The argument made on behalf of the appellants regarding delay and setting aside of promotions is addressed.
- Direct recruits were litigating before the Court and their regular appointments were finalized based on a previous judgment.
- Seniority list was prepared after the appointments were made final.
- It is argued that there was no delay in this process.
Also Read: Legal Analysis on Concurrent Sentences in Drug Trafficking Cases
Analysis
- The Court clarified that the direct recruits were to be treated as regularly appointed AAOs from the date of their initial appointment, with consequential benefits including seniority.
- There was no delay in the direct recruits’ appointments as claimed by the appellants.
- The appellants’ request to not be reverted to their previous positions was rejected.
- Litigation regarding the direct recruits’ status as regular employees was ongoing until 2015 when their seniority was determined.
- The requirement of passing the SAS Part II examination for promotion to the post of AO was deemed arbitrary and illogical by the High Court.
- The High Court held that the SAS Part II examination requirement was only applicable for promotion from Superintendent (D/A) to AAO and not for promotion to AO.
- The dispute primarily revolves around the direct recruits and the promotees.
- The entire list for the promotion to the post of AO will have to be re-shuffled.
- Cases of the direct recruits need to be considered for promotion from the date their junior was promoted to the post of AO.
Also Read: Legal Jurisdiction and Award Finality in Arbitration Dispute
Decision
- The prayer of the appellants not to be reverted and to continue on the promotional post has been rejected due to potential complications in the promotion process.
- All appeals have failed and are being dismissed.
- Necessary consequences must be followed as a result of the dismissal.
- Pending applications, if any, have been disposed of.
- Granting the prayer could nullify the effect of the High Court’s judgment and order.
Case Title: RAMESH KUMAR Vs. THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH (2021 INSC 727)
Case Number: C.A. No.-006649-006650 / 2021
