P N ROAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have come forward with this Special Civil Application for striking down the words and figures 8 years substituted for 3 years in the Gujarat Account Service Rules 1964 under Rule 5(1 ) under the heading Gujarat Accounts Services Cl. I Junior Duty Post under Sub-Rule 1 by holding it to be ultra vires unconstitutional and violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and also for declaring that the amended Rules at Annexure A to Special Civil Application do not restrain the direct recruites promoted to Class-I posts by substituting 8 years experience in place of 3 years and for other reliefs.

(2.) The short facts of this case are that the petitioners are working as Class II officers being appointed by direct recruitment. They joined their services on 1/10/1982 being selected by the Gujarat Public Service Commission directly as Accounts Officers Class II. There are two modes of appointment for posts of Class II Officers i.e. one by promotion and the other by direct recruitment. The promotion is made from among the persons of proven merit and efficiency who have worked far atleast 3 years on the supervisory post and have passed the departmental examination. The other mode of recruitment is direct recruitment by Gujarat Public Service Commission. The ratio of appointment to the post is 1:3 i.e. one promotee and 3 direct recruits. As per the old rules 3 years experience in the Class II post is required for promotion to Class I Junior Duty Post. This promotion is also on the ratio of 2:1 i.e two promotees and one direct recruit. Recently the Government has amended the promotion rules and has substituted the period of experience of 8 years in the place of 3 years in Class II cadre for becoming eligible for promotion to Class I post. This amendment to rules prescribing 8 years experience is questioned by the petitioners herein on various grounds. It is submitted by the petitioners that they joined as direct recruitees since the rules as on the date they have joined the service prescribed only 3 years experience for promotion to Class I post and that the amendment substituting 8 years experience according to the petitioners bars their bright future for promotion They questioned the amendment on the doctrine of promissory estoppel. It is further contended that the amendment carried out is to block the direct recruits from getting any promotion to Class I service (Junior Duty Post) in order to enable the promotees to enjoy such benefits. The petitioners further contended that such amendment will create anomaly by promoting juniors to the direct recruits to the post of Class I services since the promotees to Class II service either on ad-hoc basis or on temporary promotion would have put in 8 years experience.

(3.) Mr. Tanna the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the Gujarat Accounts Services (Amendment) Rules 1987 was passed in pursuance of the resolution of the General Administration Department which inter alia refers to the amendment in Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules 1967 It is further submitted by Mr. Tanna that on a plain reading of both the resolutions and the amended rules it is quite clear that minimum experience of 8 years prescribed under Rule 11(2)(a)(b) of General Rule is to be applied only when the relevant rules at the relevant time did not provide the specific period for minimum experience as a condition precedent for promotion to higher posts. It is further contended by Mr. Tanna that the Government in Finance Department has exercised power under this resolution and notification and therefore it is a colourable exercise of power since there is no mandate for amending recruitment rules which specified period of experience. The learned Counsel further submitted that the right which has accrued to the petitioners i.e. the right to get promoted with 3 years experience cannot be taken away by subsequent amendment which does not specifically apply retrospectively. So the learned Counsel submitted the Government is bound by the doctrine of promissory estoppel inasmuch as the original experience rule Red the petitioners to believe that they would be promoted after a minimum period specified in the rules and if the Government is allowed to back out from the said original rule of three years experience for promotion the petitioners would be placed in a disadvantageous situation. Finally the learned Counsel submitted that it would create an absurd situation that a person is treated as a senior but is not found fit for promotion by subsequent amendment to the rules. The amendment now introduced has not taken care of the situation whereby the petitioners promotional avenue have been arbitrarily curtailed and hence such amendment is violative of Arts. 14 & 16 Referring to the Sadhwani Committee Report Mr. Tanna states that in the policy decision taken by the Government no where reflects the conscious decision of the Government to amend all recruitment rules and hence the policy decision without applying its mind to the type of work experience required for promotion etc. is arbitrary and cannot be sustained. After reading the Sadhwani Committee Report Mr. Tanna also submitted that the said report clearly states that minimum experience qualification can be fixed only in cases where the rule does not prescribe minimum experience qualification for promotional purposes. In support of his contentions raised above the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners cited the following decisions; 1969 SLR 509 para 5 (K. Veerayya v. State of Mysore) AIR 1979 SC 621 para 32 33 (M. P. Sugar Mills v. State of U. P.). AIR 1981 SC 1545 para 4 (Col. A. S. Sangwan v. Union of India) AIR 1968 SC 718 (Union of India v. Om Prakash) AIR 1971 SC 1021 para 11 12 (Century Spn & Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. The Ulhasnagar Muni. Council) 1974 SLJ 170 (Orissa) (Gopal Chandar Bose v. State of Orissa.) AIR 1976 SC 490 (Stare of Kerala v. N. M. Thomas) AIR 1985 SC 941 para 4 5 (Surya Narain Yadav v. Bihar State Electricity Board).