As per the Rules, the respondent no. 1 was eligible for consideration for promotion to the post of ‘Scientist E’ on completion of four years of service as ‘Scientist D’. (Para 2)
We however for the reasons stated earlier direct the respondents Department in the interest of fairness and justice, to inform the applicant the reasons how she was not found suitable for promotion inspite of the high rating given to her by the Assessment board in the scale of 10 points. (Para 3)
In the absence of any foundation in the pleading to challenge the vires of the said rule and without asking for any relief, Rule 4(b) has been declared ultra vires by the impugned order. (Para 4)
We are also of the considered view that, in the writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari challenging the order of the CAT, the High Court ought not to have declared Rule 4(b) as ultra vires in the above fact situation. Therefore, the High Court was not justified to declare Rule 4(b) as ultra vires. (Para 9)
Even otherwise, the respondent no.1 had already been promoted during the pendency of the writ petition and has attained the age of superannuation by now. (Para 11)
As we have set aside the order of the High Court declaring Rule 4(b) as unconstitutional on the ground of lack of any challenge, either in the O.A. or in the writ petition, we do not permit the impleaded parties here to urge those grounds. (Para 12)
We make it clear that we have not expressed any view regarding the validity of the Rules on merits, one way or the other and, therefore, this judgment will not come in the way of any court dealing with the issue of the vires of the Rules in any pending proceeding or in any proceeding that may be initiated afresh. (Para 12)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2023 STPL(Web) 226 SC
[2023 INSC 787]
Union Of India & Ors. Vs. Manjurani Routray & Ors.
Civil Appeal No. 2299 of 2010-Decided on 1-9-2023
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/2023-STPLWeb-226-SC.pdf
