Appointments to public posts governed by existing rules: Supreme Court [Read Judgment]

The Supreme Court recently overruled its 1983 judgment in YV Rangaiah v J Sreenivasa Rao which had held that public posts which fell vacant prior to the amendment of Rules would be governed by old Rules and not by the new Rules. [State of Himachal Pradesh vs Raj Kumar].A Bench of Justices UU Lalit, Ravindra Bhat and PS Narasimha held that the statement in Rangaiah 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. "After examining the principle in the context of the constitutional position of services under the State, and having reviewed the decisions that have followed or distinguished Rangaiah in that perspective, we have formulated the legal principles that should govern services under the State. Applying the said principles, we have held that the broad proposition formulated in Rangaiah does not reflect the correct constitutional position", the Court said in its judgment..The top court further held that rights and obligations of persons serving the Union and the States are to be sourced from the rules governing the services..The Court was considering an appeal concerning The Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1966 dated March 1,1966 which govern the post of Labour Officer. In November 2006, the Rules were amended.Three labour inspectors approached the Himachal Pradesh High Court challenging the State Government's decision to fill up some of the posts of Labour Officers by direct recruitment as opposed to promotions as was required under the old rules. They contended that the vacancies arose in July 2006, which is before the promulgation of the New Rules and therefore all the vacancies must be filled only by promotion. The High Court proceeded on the premise that the issue was covered by Rangaiah and allowed the petition moved by the labour officers. This prompted the State Government to approach the Supreme Court by way of the instant appeal. .The question that arose in Rangaiah related to the mandatory obligation under the old rules to prepare an approved list of candidates and also the number of persons to be placed in the list as per the vacancies available. It is in this context that the Court had observed that the vacancies would be governed by the old rules.However, the top court ruled that this 1983 judgment does not reflect the correct position in law. .The top court reviewed 15 decision that have distinguished Rangaiah, showing that the Court has been consistently carving out exceptions to the broad proposition formulated in Rangaiah. The findings in these judgments, that have a direct bearing on the proposition formulated by Rangaiah are as under: There is no rule of universal application that vacancies must be necessarily filled on the basis of the law which existed on the date when they arose, Rangaiah’s case must be understood in the context of the rules involved therein;It is now a settled proposition of law that a candidate has a right to be considered in the light of the existed rules, which implies the "rule in force" as on the date consideration takes place. The right to be considered for promotion occurs on the date of consideration of the eligible candidates;The Government is entitled to take a conscious policy decision not to fill up the vacancies arising prior to the amendment of the rules. The employee does not acquire any vested right to being considered for promotion in accordance with the repealed rules in view of the policy decision taken by the Government;There is no obligation for the Government to make appointments as per the old rules in the event of restructuring of the cadre is intended for efficient working of the unit. The only requirement is that the policy decisions of the Government must be fair and reasonable and must be justified on the touchstone of Article 14;The principle in Rangaiah need not be applied merely because posts were created, as it is not obligatory for the appointing authority to fill up the posts immediately; andWhen there is no statutory duty cast upon the State to consider appointments to vacancies that existed prior to the amendment, the State cannot be directed to consider the cases..Applying these principles to the facts of the instant appeal, the Court noted that the 2006 rules, governing the services of the Respondents came 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. There is no other right that the three inspectors can claim for such consideration", the top court said while allowing the appeal..Senior Advocate PS Patwalia and Advocate-on-Record Abhinav Mukerji, appeared for the appellant-State and Advocate Prasanjit Keshvani, appeared for the respondents..[Read Judgment]