caselaws.org

Supreme Court of India
Ramesh Kumar vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh on 13 November, 2021Author: M.R. Shah

Bench: M.R. Shah, B.V. Nagarathna

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.6649-6650 OF 2021

Ramesh Kumar & Ors. Etc. …Appellant(s)

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Etc. …Respondent(s)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6652 OF 2021

Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited …Appellant(s)

Versus

Arjun Singh & Ors. …Respondent(s)

AND

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6651 OF 2021

Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited …Appellant(s)

Versus
Signature Not Verified

Vipin Kumar Kaushal & Ors.
Digitally signed by R
Natarajan
Date: 2021.11.13
…Respondent(s)
16:49:43 IST
Reason:

1
JUDGMENT

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment

and order passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh dated

04.03.2020 passed in CWP No. 11 of 2019 and CWP No.12 of 2019 by

which the High Court has allowed the said writ petitions preferred by the

private respondents herein – original writ petitioners by which the High

Court has set aside the promotions of the Assistant Accounts Officers

junior to the original writ petitioners and has directed the Himachal State

Electricity Board Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”) to

consider the original writ petitioners for promotion to the post of Accounts

Officers from the dates from which the persons junior to them in the

cadre of Assistant Accounts Officers (hereinafter referred to as “AAO”)

were promoted to the post of Accounts Officers (hereinafter referred to

as “AO”), the original private respondents as well as the Board have

preferred the present appeals.

2. That the dispute is related to the promotion to the post of A.O.

Once again the dispute is between the direct recruits and the promotees.

That earlier the post of AAO was a promotional post to be filled up 100%

by promotion from Superintendent (D/A), who have cleared SAS Part-II

examination. Similarly, the post of AO was a promotional post to be filled
2
up 100% by promotion from the post of AAO. In the year 2006 the

Regulations came to be amended and a provision was made for direct

recruitment for the post of AAOs. The respondents herein – original writ

petitioners were the direct recruits to the post of AAO. Initially, they were

appointed on contract basis though their appointments were after

following due procedure of selection. The appellants herein – original

respondents are the promotees to the post of AAO.

2.1 As per the amended Regulations dated 01.11.2006, for the post of

AAOs 30% posts were reserved for direct recruits and 70% for

promotion. The educational qualification required for the direct recruits

for the post of AAO reads as under:-

7. Minimum Educational Essential
and other qualification Post Graduate degree in Commerce,
required for direct MBA(Fin.)/MFC with minimum 55%
recruits marks or having degree of Chartered
Accountants/ICWA from recognised
University/Institute.
Desirable
Knowledge of customs, manners &
dialects of Himachal Pradesh &
suitability for appointment in the
peculiar conditions prevailing in the
Pradesh.

2.2 Thus, there was no requirement of passing SAS Part II exam so

far as the direct recruits for the post of AAO is concerned. The dispute

arose as to whether the direct recruits though they were appointed after

3
following all procedure of selection including recommendation of the

Public Service Commission and were continuing in service since long,

they can be said to be regularly appointed or not . The dispute ended in

the year 2015 in view of the decision of this Court in Civil Appeal No. 390

of 2015 in which this Court directed the Board to provide letter of regular

appointment to those direct recruits – original writ petitioners herein

w.e.f. the date of their initial appointment treating the initial two years as

on probation with further direction to provide them with consequential

benefits including regular scale of pay, increment, arrears of pay,

seniority etc. to which they were entitled under the law.

2.3 That vide amendment notification dated 02.01.2010, the R&P

Regulations to the post of Superintendent (D/A), Assistant Accounts

Officer, Accounts Officer etc. came to be issued and so far as the post of

Accounts Officer is concerned, it provided as under:-3. Accounts HPSEB/Sectt/ Column Should (i) 80% from
Officer 1-06-10/75- No. 6 minimum amongst the
(8550- 59814-904 service of AAO who
14500) dated three have
with initial 29.10.1975 years as rendered
start of and further Asstt. minimum two
9400/- amendment Accounts years service
vide Officer. as AAO &
notification No. must have
HPSEB passed SAS
(Sectt)/106- Part-II
10/R&E/96- (ii) 20% by
11671-871 method of

4
dated direct
10.10.1996 recruitment
having
degree of
ICWA/ CA
from
recognizer
Institute or
on
secondment
basis.

2.4 On the basis of the aforesaid amended Regulation issued vide

notification dated 02.01.2010, the appellants herein came to be

promoted to the post of AO and thereafter to the post of Sr. AO. In view

of the amended notification dated 02.01.2010, under which one of the

requirement was that for the promotion to the post of AO (for 80% posts

of AO), the AAOs must have passed SAS Part II exam, the direct recruits

AAOs were not promoted and/or their cases were considered on the

ground that they have not passed the SAS Part II exam. After decision

of this Court dated 13.01.2015 in Civil Appeal No. 390 of 2015 by which

the status of the private respondents herein the original writ petitioners –

direct recruits came to be cleared, the private respondents herein –

direct recruits AAO filed the writ petition before the High Court

challenging the amendment notification dated 02.01.2010 under which it

was provided that for promotion to the post of AO, 80% promotional

quota was to be from AAOs, who have rendered minimum two years

5
service as AAO and must have passed SAS Part II exam. A

consequential relief was also sought. By impugned judgment and order,

the High Court has allowed the said writ petitions and read down the

words “must have passed SAS Part II” prescribed against 80%

promotion quota for promotion to the post of Accounts Officer and

directed that the same be made applicable to the category of

Superintendents (D/A) promoted as AAOs against 20% promotion quota

prescribed for promotion from the post of Superintendent (D/A), who

could not pass SAS Part II examination. Consequently, the High Court

quashed the promotions of the AAOs – junior to the original writ

petitioners – direct recruits and directed the Board to consider the direct

recruit AAOs for promotion to the post of AOs from due dates from which

persons junior to them in the cadre of AAOs were promoted.

2.5 The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is the

subject matter of the present appeals.

3. We have heard Shri P.S. Patwalia, learned Senior Advocate

appearing on behalf of the appellants herein – promoted AAOs, who

subsequently came to be promoted as AOs and learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the Board and learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the original writ petitioners – direct recruit AAOs.

6
4. Shri Patwalia, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the

promotee AAOs, who subsequently came to be promoted to the post of

AOs pursuant to the amendment notification dated 02.01.2010 has

vehemently submitted that the High Court has not properly appreciated

the object and purpose of providing passing of SAS Part II examination

for promotion to the post of AO.

4.1 It is submitted that being a higher post, after due deliberation, a

decision was taken by the Board to provide for passing of SAS Part II

examination for the promotion to the post of AO.

4.2 It is submitted that initially the appointment to the post of

AAOs/AOs were by way of promotion only and for the post of AAO, the

requirement of passing of SAS Part II examination was mandatory. It is

submitted that thereafter when the Regulations came to be amended by

providing the quota for direct recruits, the Board thought it fit to also

provide for passing of the SAS Part II examination for promotion to the

post of AO from the post of AAO. It is submitted that number of chances

were given to the direct recruits to pass the SAS Part II examination and

many of them cleared also. It is submitted therefore the requirement of

passing SAS Part II examination for promotion to the post of AO ought

not to have been set aside by the High Court.

7
4.3 It is further submitted by Shri Patwalia, learned Senior Advocate

appearing on behalf of the appellants-promotees that the appellants got

the promotion in the year 2010/2012 pursuant to the amendment

notification dated 02.01.2010 and even thereafter they got their further

promotion and the writ petition was filed in the year 2017 and therefore

the High Court ought not to have set aside their promotions to the post

of AO and Senior AO after such a long time, more particularly, when they

have worked on the promotional post for number of years. It is

submitted that as the appellants herein are working on the promotional

post of AO since long, they may not be directed to be reverted and their

promotions to the post of AO and their further promotion be protected.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Board has supported

the submissions as advanced by Shri Patwalia, learned Senior Advocate

appearing on behalf of the appellants – promotees.

6. Present appeals are vehemently opposed by learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the direct recruits. It is submitted that as rightly

held by the High Court, the amendment notification dated 02.01.2010

under which it is provided that for promotion to the post of AO, the

passing of SAS Part II examination is must, is arbitrary. It is submitted

that the qualification required for the post of AAO, i.e., passing of SAS

Part II examination cannot be made applicable for promotion to the post
8
of AO more particularly when there is no requirement of passing of SAS

Part II examination for direct recruit AAO. It is submitted that after

appointment as AAO, either as promotee or direct recruits, all AAOs shall

be at par. It is submitted that even there was no requirement of passing

SAS Part II examination for direct recruits as AAOs. It is submitted that

therefore even when for appointment as direct recruits as AAOs, there

was no requirement of passing SAS Part II examination, no such

qualification of passing SAS Part II examination for promotion to the post

of AO could have been imposed. It is submitted that therefore the High

court has rightly read down the amendment notification dated

02.01.2010 by holding that the passing of SAS Part II examination shall

be restricted for the promotion from the post of Superintendent (D/A) to

AAO and shall not be applicable for promotion to the post of AO.

6.1 It is further submitted that as such if the amendment notification

dated 02.01.2010 as stood is made applicable, in that case, no direct

recruits would get the promotion to the post of AO, as per the Regulation

unless they work for a particular period, they shall not be entitled to

appear in the examination of even SAS Part II.

6.2 So far as the submission on behalf of the appellants that there was

a delay and therefore the High Court ought not to have set aside the

9
promotions is concerned, it is submitted that as such the direct recruits

were litigating before this Court and their appointments as regular

appointments came to be made final pursuant to the judgment and order

dated 13.01.2015 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 390 of 2015

and thereafter the seniority list was prepared. It is submitted that

immediately thereafter they filed the petitions. It is submitted that

therefore there was no delay at all.

7. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective

parties at length.

8. The issue which poses for consideration before this Court in this

case is the dispute with respect to the promotion to the post of AO.

Once again the dispute is between the direct recruits and the promotees.

8.1 It is required to be noted that even as per the Regulation dated

01.11.2006, there was no requirement of passing SAS Part II

examination for the direct recruit AAOs. The requirement of passing

SAS Part II examination was for the promotion from the post of

Superintendent (D/A) to the post of AAO and for the promotion in the

promotion quota. However, when the amended notification dated

02.01.2010 came to be issued, it provided passing of SAS Part II

10
examination for the post of AO and the eligibility criteria was minimum

two years service as AAO and must have passed SAS Part II

examination. As observed hereinabove, as such for the post of AAO and

as per the Regulation dated 01.11.2006 as such there was no

requirement of passing SAS Part II examination so far as direct recruits

to the post of AAO are concerned. Requirement of passing SAS Part II

examination was only for promotion to the post of AAO from the post of

Superintendent (D/A). For direct recruits as AAO, the only requirement

was postgraduate degree in commerce (reproduced hereinabove).

Therefore, it is not understandable requirement of passing of the SAS

Part II examination for promotion to the post of AO. When there was no

requirement of passing SAS Part II examination for the lower post, i.e.,

post of AAO so far as direct recruits is concerned, there cannot be any

requirement of passing of the SAS Part II examination for the

promotional post of AO. As such after the appointment as AAO either as

a promotee or as a direct recruit, all shall be at par. Therefore, the

requirement of passing of SAS Part II examination as per the amended

notification dated 02.01.2010 for the promotion to the post of AO can be

said to be arbitrary and illogical and the same is rightly read down by the

High Court. What is not even required for the lower post, i.e., for the post

of AAO so far as the direct recruits is concerned, the same cannot be

made applicable to the promotional post of AO. The High Court is

11
absolutely justified in holding that such a requirement shall be for the

promotion from the post of Superintendent (D/A) to the post of AAO only

and consequently shall not be applicable for promotion to the post of AO.

8.2 Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the appellants that they

were promoted to the post of AO in the year 2010 onwards and their

promotions have been set aside after long time and therefore in a

petition filed in the year 2017, i.e., after approximately a period of 6-7

years, the High Court ought not to have set aside the promotions of the

appellants to the post of AO is concerned, it is required to be noted that

till 2015, a litigation was pending before this Court at the instance of the

direct recruits and their status as regular employees as AAOs came to

be determined by this Court pursuant to the decision of this Court dated

13.01.2015 in Civil Appeal No. 390 of 2015. Only thereafter they were

issued the regular appointment orders and their seniority was fixed and

only thereafter the cause of action has arisen to claim further promotion

to the post of AO.

At this stage, it is required to be noted that even while allowing the

appeals filed by the direct recruits, this Court specifically directed that

they shall be treated as regularly appointed AAOs w.e.f. the date of their

initial appointment and this Court specifically directed to provide the

12
direct recruits with consequential benefits including ………… seniority

etc. Thus, as such there was no delay at all as sought to be contended

on behalf of the appellants.

8.3 Now, so far as the prayer on behalf of the appellants that they may

not be reverted is concerned, the aforesaid cannot be accepted. If such

a prayer is granted in that case, the effect of the impugned judgment and

order passed by the High Court with which we agree shall be nullified. As

a necessary consequence to the impugned judgment and order passed

by the High Court, now the entire list for the promotion to the post of AO

will have to be re-shuffled and the cases of the direct recruits are

required to be considered for promotion to the post of AO from the date

on which their junior came to be promoted on the post of AO. Therefore,

necessary consequences will have to be followed. If the prayer of the

appellants not to revert them and to continue them on the promotional

post is accepted, in that case, there may arise many complications

including the effect on the further promotional posts from the post of AO

to Senior AO and thereafter to the post of Dy. CAO/Dy. CA/Dy. FA,

therefore, the aforesaid prayer is rejected.

9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, all these

appeals fails and are deserve to be dismissed and accordingly

13
dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no

order as to costs. Pending applications, if any also stand disposed of.

………………………………….J. [M.R. SHAH]

NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.
NOVEMBER 13, 2021. [SANJIV KHANNA]

14

Comments

Leave a Reply

Sign In

Register

Reset Password

Please enter your username or email address, you will receive a link to create a new password via email.