Rights of people serving Union & states to be sourced from rules governing services: SC

NEW DELHI: The rights and obligations of people serving the Union and the states are to be sourced from the rules governing the services, the Supreme Court said on Friday.
The apex court observed while overruling the statement made in its 1983 judgment which had said that "the vacancies which occurred prior to the amended rules would be governed by the old rules and not by the amended rules”.
A three-judge bench headed by Justice U U Lalit said this statement in the 1983 judgment in ‘Y V Rangaiah v. J Sreenivasa Rao' does not reflect the correct proposition of law governing services under the Union and the States under part XIV of the Constitution.
The bench, also comprising Justices S R Bhat and P S Narasimha, delivered the verdict on the appeals arising out of the judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court which had directed the state to consider the case of the three writ petitioners before it for promotion under rules that existed when the vacancies arose and not as per the subsequently amended rules.
It noted that these directions were based on the 1983 decision of the top court in the case of ‘Y V Rangaiah v. J Sreenivasa Rao'.
The bench said the question is whether appointments to the public posts that fell vacant prior to the amendment of the rules would be governed by the old rules or the new rules.
“For clarity and certainty, it is, therefore, necessary for us to hold; (a) The statement in Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao that, ‘the vacancies which occurred prior to the amended rules would be governed by the old rules and not by the amended rules', does not reflect the correct proposition of law governing services under the Union and the States under part XIV of the Constitution. It is hereby overruled,” the bench said in its 61-page verdict.
“The rights and obligations of persons serving the Union and the States are to be sourced from the rules governing the services,” it said.
The bench said as it noticed a number of decisions of the apex court that have followed the 1983 verdict, and far more decisions that have distinguished it, it had to examine the issue afresh.
It said the relationship between the State and its employees is provisioned in Part XIV of the Constitution.
“The provisions of this Part empower the Union and the States to make laws and executive rules, to regulate the recruitment, conditions of service, tenure and termination of persons serving the Union or the States,” it said.
The bench noted that almost all the decisions that distinguished Rangaiah verdict hold that there is no rule of universal application to the effect that vacancies must necessarily be filled on the basis of the law that existed on the date when they arose and this only implies that the decision in Rangaiah is confined to the facts of that case.
“The consistent findings in these fifteen decisions that Rangaiah's case must be seen in the context of its own facts, coupled with the declarations therein that there is no rule of universal application to the effect that vacancies must necessarily be filled on the basis of rules which existed on the date which they arose, compels us to conclude that the decision in Rangaiah is impliedly overruled,” the bench said.
While setting aside the high court judgment, the bench said the 2006 rules, governing the services, had come into force immediately after they were notified.
“There is no provision in the said rules to enable the respondents to be considered as per the 1966 Rules. The matter must end here,” it said.
Noting the facts of the case, the bench said the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1966 dated March 1, 1966, made in exercise of the powers under Article 309 of the Constitution govern the post of labour officer.
It said on July 20, 2006, the Secretary of Labour and Employment Department had addressed a letter to the Labour Commissioner intimating sanction for the creation of additional posts in the department which included seven more posts for labor officers.
The top court noted that as a consequence of the said decision, the total costs for labour officers increased from five to 12.
It said at this point, the three petitioners, who had later moved to the high court, were working as labour inspectors in the service of the state.
The apex court noted that within four months from the sanction of the additional posts, the 1966 rules came to be amended on November 25, 2006, and under the new rules, recruitment to the post of labour officer was to be made by promotion as well as direct recruitment in the ratio of 75 per cent and 25 per cent respectively.
Some applicants had approached the administrative tribunal challenging the proposed action of the state in filling up 25 per cent of posts of labour officers by direct recruitment.
Later, when the matter was pending before the state administrative tribunal, the state proceeded further and issued an advertisement calling for applications for filling up the three posts of labour officers under the quota of direct recruitment.
The recruitment process was completed and three persons were appointed, after which a petition was filed in the high court questioning the legality and validity of the said appointments.
The high court allowed the petition in December 2009 after which appeals were filed in the top court.