UNION OF INDIA Vs. TUSHAR RANJAN MOHANTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Indian Statistical Service (the service) is governed by statutory rules called the Indian Statistical Service Rules, 1961 (the rules). Respondents, in the appeal herein, are the members of the service. Tushar Ranjan Mohanty (Mohanty)-respondent 1 belongs to the general category whereas respondents 2 to 9 are members of the Scheduled Castes. Respondents 2 to 9 were promoted from Grade IV to Grade III in the service. They were promoted against the vacancies reserved for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes under the instructions issued by the Government of India from time to time. Mohanty, being senior to respondents 2 to 9 Grade IV, challenged their promotions before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, (the Tribunal) on the ground that under the reservation, in respect of appointments to the service by promotion, was not permitted under the Rules. The Tribunal accepted the contention of Mohanty and came to the conclusion that promotion of respondents 2 to 9 in supersession of the claim of Mohanty was against the rules. The Tribunal, however, did not disturb the promotions already given to the respondents and directed that Mohanty be deemed to have been promoted to Grade III from the same date when respondents were promoted and he would be placed above the respondents in the seniority list of Grade III. This appeal, by the Union of India, is against the judgment of the Tribunal.

(2.) We have no hesitation in holding that the Tribunal correctly interpreted the rules as they existed on November 28, 1988 when the Tribunal delivered its judgment. These rules were, however, amended with effect from November 27, 1972 by the Notification dated February 20, 1989 and the reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes was provided even in the appointments made by way of promotion. It is contended on behalf of the Union of India that in view of the amendment of the rules with retrospective effect, the judgment of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside and the promotions of respondents 2 to 9 to Grade III of the service are to be upheld. Mohanty and other members of the general category have, however, challenged before us the validity of the retrospective amendment of the rules. We shall state the grounds of challenge in the later part of the judgment.

(3.) Rule 8(1)(b)(i) and Rule 13 (before amendment) of the rules are as under :-