IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Date of Decision: 03.09.2025

211 (3 cases)

CWP-24764-2021

VIRENDER KUMAR AND OTHERS

...Petitioners

Versus

CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES AND OTHERS

...Respondents

CWP-24767-2021 

VIRENDER KUMAR AND OTHERS

...Petitioners

Versus

CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES AND OTHERS

...Respondents

CWP-24775-2021  (O&M)

VIRENDER KUMAR AND OTHERS

...Petitioners

Versus

CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES AND OTHERS

...Respondents

CORAM:  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI

Present:! Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Advocate &

Mr. Ravinder Pankaj, Advocate,

for the petitioners.

Mr. Akshay Bhan, Senior Advocate with

Mr. Amandeep Talwar, Advocate and

Mr. Sharya Khanna, Advocate,

for respondents No.6, 7 & 28 (in CWP!24764!2021).

Mr. Nitin Sharma, Advocate,

for respondent Nos.17, 12 & 20 (in CWP No.24767 of 2021).

Dr. Rau P.S. Girwar, Advocate, (through V.C.) with

Ms. Archana Arora Rau, Advocate,

Ms. K.T. Rau, Advocate and

Mr. Ashish Sharma, Advocate,

for respondent Nos.9, 15, 21, 22 and 24.

CWP!24764!2021 & connected cases (2)

Mr. Sanjay Tangri, Advocate, (Through V.C.)

for respondent Nos.1 to 5.

*****

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI    , J. (ORAL)   

1. In the present bunch of writ petitions, the challenge is to the

order dated 28.11.2019 (Annexure P!1) passed by the Central Administrative

Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as

‘Tribunal’), by which a direction has been given by the Tribunal by placing

reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Y.V.

Rangaiah and others vs. J. Sreenivasa Rao and others, (1983) 3 SCC 284,

that for filling up the vacancy of the Section Supervisor, the rules which

were prevalent prior to the promulgation of Employees’ Provident Fund

Organization Section Supervisor Recruitment Regulations, 2017 (for short

‘2017 regulations’), will be adhered to, as the vacancies which were being

sought to be filled!up, arose prior to the promulgation of the said 2017

regulations.

2. Certain facts need to be mentioned for the correct appreciation

of the issue at hand.

3. The petitioners are working as Senior Social Security Assistants

(SSSAs) with the respondent!organization. The next promotion from the

post of SSSA is to the post of Section Supervisor, which was to be made in

accordance with the “Employee Provident Fund Orginization Section

Supervisor (Head Clerk) Regional office Recruitment Rule, 1992, as

amended in 2006 (for short “1992 rules”). As per the 1992 Rules, post of

Section Supervisor is required to be filled up by 100% promotion from two

sources, i.e. 66 2/3%, were to be filled by promotion of Social Security

CWP!24764!2021 & connected cases (3)

Assistants (SSA) on the basis of the seniority having 03 years of service and

33 1/3% of the posts were to be filled though by promotion but from the

employees serving in the respective regional office on the basis of the

departmental examination, which was only allowed to the employees, who

have rendered not less than 3 years of service as SSA or the Stenographers,

failing which the direct recruitment was to be undertaken.

4. The said 1992 Rules continued in operation till the 2017

regulations were enacted on 05.12.2017 and as per the 2017 regulations and

criteria for promotion was changed to the effect that for promotion to the

post of Section Supervisor, the quota for promotion on the basis of seniority

and through limited departmental competitive examination remained the

same but the eligibility to compete under the said quota was changed. From

05.12.2017 onwards, the following rule was made operational.

Method of recruitment whether by 

direct recruitment or by promotion 

or by deputation/ absorption and 

percentage of the vacancies to be 

filled by various methods.

In case of recruitment by promotion 

or deputation or absorption, grades 

from which promotion or deputation 

or absorption to be made

10 11

(i) 66 2/3% by promotion on the basis 

of seniority subject to rejection of 

unfit.

(ii) 33 1/3% by promotion through 

Limited Departmental Competitive 

Examination.

(i) Senior  Social Security Assistants in 

LEVEL-6 (Rs.35400-112400) with five 

years’ of regular service rendered in the 

respective zonal offices;

(ii) Employees serving in the respective 

zone on the basis of Limited 

Departmental Competitive Examination

held for those who have rendered not 

less than five years’ service as Senior  

Social Security Assistants in LEVEL-6 

(Rs.35400-112400).

Note: Respective Zone means all 

offices of Employees’ Provident Fund 

Organization sharing a common 

seniority.

5. After the promulgation of 2017 regulations, the Department

CWP!24764!2021 & connected cases (4)

decided to fill up the post of Section Supervisor and issued the notification

dated 21.06.2018, wherein, it was mentioned that the eligibility of an

employee for promotion to the post of Section Supervisor will be seen as per

2017 regulations even for the Competitive Examination Scheme and the

eligibility will be seen on as on 1

st

of April of the year vacancy arose.

6. Thereafter, keeping in view the fact that only Senior Social

Security Assistants were made eligible under 2017 regulations, the grievance

was raised by the Social Security Assistants that they are being made

ineligible to compete for the post of Section Supervisor despite the fact that

under the 1992 rules when the vacancy arose, they were eligible and as the

vacancies which are being filled up became available prior to the

promulgation of 2017 regulations, they cannot be ousted from the zone of

consideration especially when the eligibility is to be seen on as on 1

st

of

April of the year when the vacancy arose. Keeping in view the litigation

initiated at the hands of the Social Security Assistants before the Tribunal,

they were also allowed to compete for promotion to the post of Section

Supervisor by the grant of interim order.

7. Thereafter, the Original Applications were decided by the

Tribunal vide order dated 28.11.2019 allowing the prayer of the Social

Security Assistants that as the vacancy arose starting from the year 2006

onwards till 2017, during which period, no promotions were undertaken to

the post of Section Supervisor and as per the judgment of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India in Y.V. Rangaiah’s case (supra), all vacancies

which arise prior to the amendment of the rules, are to be filled by old rules,

hence, the right to compete for the said post as being claimed by the Social

CWP!24764!2021 & connected cases (5)

Security Assistants is valid and they should also be considered eligible for

such posts which were available prior to 05.12.2017 and are being filled up

in pursuance to the recruitment notice issued in the year 2018.

8. Thereafter, the judgment dated 28.11.2019 passed by the

Tribunal was looked into by the department and was accepted and the

promotions were made by considering Social Security Assistants eligible

and on the basis of the merit obtained by the employees in the departmental

examination irrespective of the fact as to whether they were working on the

higher post of Senior Social Security Assistants or Social Security

Assistants, as the case may be. The employees higher in merit were allowed

the promotions to the post of Section Supervisor, which has caused prejudice

to the petitioners herein, who claimed that as they are working as Senior

Social Security Assistants and are senior to the Social Security Assistants

and as per 2017 regulations, only the Senior Social Security Assistants are

eligible, their right to claim promotions has been defeated by the employees,

who were juniors to them and were also ineligible as per 2017 regulations,

which should have been made applicable rather than the 1992 rules which

were in existence on the date when the vacancy arose. Hence, the present

bunch of petitions.

9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners argues

that the petitioners are the Senior Social Security Assistants, who are

working with the Department and as per the 2017 regulations, only the

Senior Social Security Assistants are eligible for promotion to the post of

Section Supervisor as per the notification issued for making promotion on

21.06.2018 hence, allowing Social Security Assistants to be treated eligible

CWP!24764!2021 & connected cases (6)

for promotion on the ground that under the 1992 Rules, as amended in the

year 2006, Social Security Assistants were eligible and as the post became

available from 2007 onwards till 2017, i.e. prior to the promulgation of 2017

regulations, the same are to be filled as per old rules by considering Social

Security Assistants also eligible.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that since there was a

litigation going on, the department refrained from making any promotion till

the restructuring was done in the year 2016 and after restructuring, the 2017

regulations were framed according to which only the Senior Social Security

Assistants were eligible for promotion to the post of Section Supervisor,

therefore, the grant of benefit by the Tribunal in favour of Social Security

Assistants by applying the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India

in Y.V. Rangaiah’s case (supra) that old vacancies are to be filled by old

rules, the benefit has been granted, which is incorrect. Learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.9746 of 2011, titled as

State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs Raj Kumar and others, decided

on 20.05.2022, to contend that the judgment in Y.V. Rangaiah’s case (supra)

has been specifically overruled and the settled principle of law which has

been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India is that the vacancies are

to be filled up as per the rules which exist on the date of consideration

hence, as in the present case the consideration for promotion to the post of

Section Supervisor started in the year 2018, though finalized much

subsequently, 2017 regulations are to be made applicable rather than 1992

regulations as amended in the year 2006 and therefore, the judgment of the

CWP!24764!2021 & connected cases (7)

Tribunal dated 28.11.2019 is contrary to the settled principle of law settled

by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Raj Kumar’s case (supra) and the

same may kindly be set aside.

11. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents,

who have been granted relief by the Tribunal vide impugned order dated

28.11.2019 contests that the argument of the learned counsel for the

petitioners that judgment in Y.V.   Rangaiah’s case (supra) has been

overruled, is not correct rather the same has been watered down only to the

extent that the same has limited applicability. Learned senior counsel argues

that the applicability of Y.V. Rangaiah’s case (supra) exists in the present

case keeping in view the guidelines which have been issued by the

Department of Personnel that for filling up the vacancies arising in the

department, the promotion has to be made year!wise and therefore, once the

guidelines provide year!wise promotion, the judgment in Y.V. Rangaiah’s

case (supra) will be applicable and cannot be treated as having been

overruled in Raj Kumar’s case (supra).

12. Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents further

submits that the guidelines issued by the DOPT in the year 2010, has to be

read along with 2017 regulations so as to treat the Social Security Assistants

eligible for promotion hence, the Tribunal was within its jurisdiction to pass

the order treating the Social Security Assistants eligible even under 2017

regulations so as to be considered eligible for promotion to the post of

Section Supervisor, which has already been done and as the Social Security

Assistants are more meritorious, they have been granted benefit of

promotion as Section Supervisor over and above Senior Social Security

CWP!24764!2021 & connected cases (8)

Assistants and hence, the petitioners cannot raise any grievance qua the

same.

13. Learned senior counsel for the respondents further submits that

even otherwise, once the issue between the parties was settled by the

Tribunal, the subsequent judgment in Raj Kumar’s case (supra) will not take

away the right of the Social Security Assistants to be considered eligible for

promotion as Section Supervisor. Hence, the judgment in Raj Kumar’s case

(supra) cannot be applied in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

14. Learned counsels appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.7, 12

& 20 (in CWP No.24767 of 2021) and respondent Nos.9, 15, 21, 22 and 24

(in CWP!24775 of 2021) submit that once the petitioners have participated

in the selection process, they cannot be allowed to turn around and say that

the selection so made on the basis of the order passed by the Tribunal is

incorrect and the law of estoppel will come into force especially when the

petitioners competed in the departmental examination and could not come

within the merit keeping in view the number of post of Section Supervisor to

be filled up hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground

alone.

15. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Department submits

that though, before the Tribunal, the stand of the Department was the same

as that of the petitioners herein that the vacancies are to be filled as per the

2017 regulations and the claim that old vacancies are to be filled according

to the 1992 rules, is not applicable but after the judgment of the Tribunal,

dated 28.11.2019, which has been impugned in the present petitions, a

conscious decision was taken to implement the said judgment and to effect

CWP!24764!2021 & connected cases (9)

promotion as per the said judgment.

16 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone

through the case files with their able assistance.

17. The first argument which has been raised by the learned

counsel for the petitioners is that the judgment in Y.V. Rangaiah’s case

(supra) has been relied upon by the Tribunal so as to grant relief to the

respondents herein that the vacancies, which arose prior to 2017 regulations,

are to be filled by the unamended rules of 1992, cannot be sustained in view

of the fact that the judgment in Y.V. Rangaiah’s case (supra) has been

overruled in Raj Kumar’s case (supra). The said argument has been

opposed by the learned senior counsel counsel for the respondents on the

ground that the judgment in Y.V. Rangaiah’s case (supra) has only been

diluted and not overruled hence, as the vacancies are to be filled year!wise,

order has rightly been passed by the Tribunal to fill up the vacancies as per

the unamended Rules, i.e. 1992 Rules.

18. In order to appreciate the respective arguments, the statutory

rules governing promotion are to be looked into. A bare perusal of the rule

which has been reproduced hereinbefore shows that no rule or clause has

been mentioned that the promotions are to be made every year keeping in

view the number of vacancies which arise in a particular year so as to effect

promotions. In the absence of any such statutory rule brought before this

Court directing promotion every year, it cannot be said that the respondents

were under obligation to effect promotion every year keeping in view the

vacancies which arise in those years.

19. Further, the reliance is being placed by the respondents on the

CWP!24764!2021 & connected cases (10)

guidelines issued by the DOPT that the vacancy should be filled every year.

It may be noticed that the said DOPT letter/guidelines is only a

recommendatory asking the department that the vacancies should be filled

up so that the work does not suffer. Once, the rule does not envisage any

direction or obligation upon the department to fill the posts every year, even

otherwise, the judgment in Y.V. Rangaiah’s case (supra) could not have

been made applicable, as the judgment in Y.V. Rangaiah’s case (supra) was

given under the specific rule where, there was an obligation upon the

department to prepare a select list every year keeping in view the vacancy

that arose, which fact is missing in the present case.

20. Apart from this, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India in Raj Kumar’s case (supra) is quite clear. As per the law laid

down, the rules which are in operation on the date when the consideration

takes place for promotion are to be made applicable. The reason given by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India is that there is no vested right to claim

promotion and only right is of consideration as and when the department

decides to effect the promotion. Hence, the rules which are applicable on

the date when the consideration takes place are to govern the issue of

promotion and no promotion can be made on the basis of the rules, which

no longer exist in the rule book. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment in

Raj Kumar’s case (supra) are as under.

“3.2 Shri P.S. Patwalia, learned Senior Advocate for

the Appellant!State made the following submissions.

At the outset, he would submit, that there was no

challenge to the legality of the New Rules and

therefore the Respondents cannot seek a relief which

is contrary to the Rules i.e., filling up the posts by

CWP!24764!2021 & connected cases (11)

way of promotion as per the Old Rules. Secondly, the

interdepartmental letter dated 20.07.2006 followed by

the notification dated 02.01.2007 creating the posts

was in furtherance of the new policy which was

brought into effect by the amendments made to the

Rules. It was therefore contended that the inter!

departmental letter dated 20.07.2006 cannot be seen

as a stand alone event and that it is part of the larger

policy to restructure the cadre. Thirdly, there is no

vested right to promotion, though there is only a right

to be considered for promotion as per the rules which

are in force at the time of such consideration.

Fourthly, the recruitment exercise undertaken by the

State is completely based on the policy consideration

of the State which the High Court failed to take into

account. In support of this submission, reliance was

placed on judgments of this Court in K. Ramulu,

Deepak Agarwal and Krishna Kumar. It was finally

contended that the High Court erred in applying the

decision of Rangaiah which was the case of

promotion, while the present case is about direct

recruitment to the post of Labour Officers.

XXXX XXXX

4.1 The real question is whether the vacancies

which arose prior to the promulgation of the new rules

are to be filled only as per the old rules and not as per

the amended rules? It is argued that this principle is

no more res!integra as the Supreme Court recognised

such a right in Rangaiah’s case and it has been

followed in a large number of subsequent decisions. A

list of such judgments was forwarded to the Court by

the Respondents. On the other hand, while submitting

that there is no such right, an even larger list of

decisions of this Court that distinguished Rangaiah

CWP!24764!2021 & connected cases (12)

was forwarded to us on behalf of the State.

XXXX XXXX

5.2 The question that arose in Rangaiah’s case

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

observed that the vacancies would be governed by the

old rules. This decision is not to be taken to be laying

down an invariable principle that vacancies occurring

prior to the amendment of the rules are to be governed

by old rules. It is important to note that the Court has

not identified any vested right of an employee, as has

been read into this judgment in certain subsequent

cases.

XXXX XXXX

11. In view of the above principles, flowing from

the constitutional status of a person in employment

with the State, we have no hesitation in holding that

the observations in Rangaiah that posts which fell

vacant prior to the amendment of Rules would be

governed by old Rules and not by new Rules do not

reflect the correct position of law. We have already

explained that the status of a Government employee

involves a relationship governed exclusively by rules

and that there are no rights outside these rules that

govern the services. Further, the Court in Rangaiah’s

case has not justified its observation by locating such

a right on any principle or on the basis of the new

Rules. As there are a large number of judgments

which followed Rangaiah under the assumption that

an overarching principle has been laid down in

Rangaiah, we have to necessarily examine the cases

that followed Rangaiah. We will now examine how

CWP!24764!2021 & connected cases (13)

subsequent decisions understood, applied or

distinguished Rangaiah.

XXXX XXXX

36. A review of the fifteen cases that have

distinguished Rangaiah would demonstrate that this

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:

1.  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.

2. 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

3. 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.

CWP!24764!2021 & connected cases (14)

4. 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.

5. When 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.

37.1 The above!referred observations made in the

fifteen decisions that have distinguished Rangaiah’s

case demonstrate that the wide principle enunciated

therein is substantially watered!down. Almost all the

decisions that distinguished Rangaiah hold that there

is no rule of universal application to the effect that

vacancies must necessarily be filled on the basis of

law that existed on the date when they arose. This

only implies that decision in Rangaiah is confined to

the facts of that case.

37.2 The decision in Deepak Agarwal (supra) is a

complete departure from the principle in Rangaiah, in

as much as the Court has held that a candidate has a

right to be considered in the light of the existing rule.

That is the rule in force on the date the consideration

takes place. This enunciation is followed in many

subsequent decisions including that of Union of India

v. Krishna Kumar (supra). In fact, in Krishna Kumar

Court held that there is only a "right to be considered

for promotion in accordance with rules which prevail

on the date on which consideration for promotion take

place.”

37.3 The consistent findings in these fifteen decisions

that Rangaiah’s case must be seen in the context of its

own facts, coupled with the declarations therein that

there is no rule of universal application to the effect

CWP!24764!2021 & connected cases (15)

that vacancies must necessarily be filled on the basis

of rules which existed on the date which they arose,

compels us to conclude that the decision in Rangaiah

is impliedly overruled. However, as there is no

declaration of law to this effect, it continues to be

cited as a precedent and this Court has been

distinguishing it on some ground or the other, as we

have indicated hereinabove. For clarity and certainty,

it is, therefore, necessary for us to hold;

(a) The statement in Y.V. Rangaiah v. J.

Sreenivasa Rao 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. It is hereby overruled.

(b) The rights and obligations of persons

serving the Union and the States are to be

sourced from the rules governing the services.”

21. A bare perusal of the above reproduction would show that the

judgment in Y.V. Rangaiah’s case (supra) has already been overruled.

Further, it has been directed that the rights and obligations of the person

serving the Union and the State are to be sourced from the rules governing

the service, which means that the rules which are applicable on the date of

the consideration are to be made applicable. That being so, on the date when

the notice was issued for filling up the post of Section Supervisor by way of

promotion i.e. 2018, the 2017 regulations were in operation according to

which, only the Senior Social Security Assistants were eligible for

consideration for promotion hence, the direction given by the tribunal to

CWP!24764!2021 & connected cases (16)

consider even the Social Security Assistants eligible for promotion by

operating 1992 rules, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law being perverse

to the settled principle of law noticed hereinbefore.

22. Further, the argument being raised by the learned counsel for

the respondents is that as per the DOPT instructions, guidelines were issued

to make promotion every year. Though, the guidelines cannot be made

subject matter of claim as they do not confer any right but in case the

guidelines are being followed continuously without any fail, the same can

give a right to claim the benefit. It is a conceded case between the parties

that the guidelines were issued in the year 2010 and from 2010 till 2018, no

promotion was effected. That being so, the guidelines were also not being

followed for effecting promotions every year. Once, the guidelines were also

not being made operative in the present case, claiming the benefit of the

same despite the fact that they do not confer any legal right, no relief can be

granted based merely on the basis of the guidelines issued by the DOPT in

the year 2010 being only a recommendatory.

23. The further argument has been raised by the learned counsel for

the respondents is that once the issue has already been finalized between the

parties, the same cannot be reopened even if, the judgment relied upon by

the Tribunal to grant the relief is subsequently overruled. The reliance has

been placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in

Civil Appeal No. 4840 of 2021, titled as Neelam Srivastava vs. State of

Uttar Pradesh and others, decided on 17.08.2021. The reliance is being

placed upon the paragraph 30 of the said judgment, which is as under:!

“30. It becomes absolutely clear from the above

clarification that earlier decisions running counter to

CWP!24764!2021 & connected cases (17)

the principles settled in the decision of Umadevi (3)

will not be treated as precedents. It cannot mean that

the judgment of a competent Court delivered prior to

the decision in Umadevi (3) and which has attained

finality and is binding inter se between the parties

need not be implemented. Mere over!ruling of the

principles, on which the earlier judgment was passed,

by a subsequent judgment of higher forum will not

have the effect of uprooting the final adjudication

between the parties and set it at naught. There is a

distinction between over!ruling a principle and

reversal of the judgment. The judgment in question

itself has to be assailed and got rid of in a manner

known to or recognized by law. Mere over!ruling of

the principles by a subsequent judgment will not

dilute the binding effect of the decision on inter!

parties.”

24. A bare perusal of the above reproduction would show that it is

only where the issue raised inter se between the parties has attained finality,

the same cannot be reopened. In the present case, only the Tribunal had

allowed the claim of the respondents, which judgment is under challenge in

the present petition and while issuing notice of motion in the order dated

07.12.2021, it was mentioned that any promotion made will be subject to the

final decision of the writ petition, which clearly shows that the issue raised

between the parties never attained finality and was still pending

consideration before this court coupled with the settled principle of law on

the issue raised, the applicability of the judgment in Raj Kumar’s case

(supra) in the facts and circumstances of the present case is perfectly valid

and legal so as to decide the issue whether the 1992 rules are to be made

applicable on the ground that the vacancies arose when the same were in

CWP!24764!2021 & connected cases (18)

operation despite amendment to the rules subsequently in 2017, which

process of promotion was started in the year 2018.

25. Learned counsel for the respondents have raised the plea that

the petitioners have already competed in the departmental examination and

failed and therefore, even otherwise they cannot raise grievance with regard

to the selection and promotion of the private respondents and further, they

were not party in the original application. It may be noticed that the said

issue to be decided as per the settled principle of law settled by the Hon’ble

supreme court of India in Civil Appeal No.4578-4580 of 2022, titled as

Krishna Rai (Dead) through LRs and others vs. Banaras Hindu University

through Registrar and others, decided on 16.06.2022, wherein it has been

held that where the selection process has been held in violation of the service

rules, same cannot be held valid on the ground that principle of estoppel

applies. In the present case, the reliance being placed by the petitioner is on

the 2017 regulations according to which, the Social Security Assistants are

not even the part of the feeder cadre to claim promotion to the post of

Section Supervisor, whereas, the Tribunal has granted the same. The

relevant paragraph of the judgement in Krishna Rai’s case (supra) is as

under:

“22. However, the Division Bench fell in error in

applying the principle of estoppel that the appellants

having appeared in the interview and being

unsuccessful proceeded to challenge the same and on

that ground alone, allowed the appeals, set−aside the

judgment of the learned Single Judge. The Division

Bench having approved the reasoning of the learned

Single Judge, ought not to have interfered in the

CWP!24764!2021 & connected cases (19)

judgment of the learned Single Judge on a technical

plea. The Division Bench ought to have considered

that the appellants were Class−IV employees working

from 1977 onwards and expecting from them to have

raised serious objection or protest at the stage of

interview and understanding the principles of

changing the Rules of the game, was too far−fetched,

unreasonable and unwarranted.

23. The case laws relied upon by the Division Bench

would have no application in the facts of the present case

as none of the judgments relied upon by the Division

Bench laid down that principle of estoppel would be

above law. It is settled principle that principle of estoppel

cannot override the law. The manual duly approved by

the Executive Council will prevail over any such

principle of estoppel or acquiescence.”

26. Even otherwise, it may be noticed that there was no challenge

to the selection process at the hands of the petitioners. Rather the same was

challenged by the respondents claiming eligibility. The petitioners who were

directly affected by the impugned judgment were not even impleaded as a

party to the said proceeding and ultimate order affected the petitioners

hence, they have rightly approached this Court for the redressal of their

grievance. Therefore, the argument being raised by the respondents that the

petitioners have no locus standi  or have competed and failed, cannot be

applied in the facts and circumstances of the present case so as to dismiss the

writ petition.

27. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents

have argued that though, up to the year 2017, the Social Security Assistants

were eligible, but by 2017 regulation, they have been ousted from the zone

CWP!24764!2021 & connected cases (20)

of consideration, as the feeder cader has been limited to Senior Social

Security Assistants only, which is incorrect and same cannot prejudice to

Social Security Assistants. It may be noted that a specific contention was

raised before the Tribunal that there is no challenge to the 2017 regulations

at the hands of the Social Security Assistants. In case, they were aggrieved

that they have been ousted from the feeder cadre for promotion as Section

Supervisor in the 2017 regulations, nothing stopped them to challenge the

said rule. In the absence of any such challenge to the 2017 regulations, no

benefit could have been granted to the Social Security Assistants so as to

treat them eligible for promotion as Section Supervisor.

28. The last contention which has been raised by the counsel

appearing on behalf of the Respondents is that after the promotions were

effected keeping in view the direction given by the Tribunal so as to treat the

Social Security Assistants eligible for promotion to the post of Section

Supervisor, some of the officers have already been promoted further hence,

they should be saved rather than being reverted. It may be noticed that while

issuing the notice of motion in the present bunch of petitions, the promotions

so made were subjected to the final outcome of the writ petitions, that means

the said promotions never gained finality until the decision of the present

bunch of the writ petitions. Though, some promotees might have been

promoted further but once their promotion to the post of Section Supervisor

was not in accordance with law as well as the rules governing the service,

further benefit of promotion could not have been granted.

29. Further, the same posts against which the respondents were

further promoted, the eligible candidates who are the petitioners are seeking

CWP!24764!2021 & connected cases (21)

promotion and eligible employees cannot be denied consideration for

promotion on the basis of the merit obtained by such candidate only to save

ineligible candidates, who are not eligible under the 2017 regulations to get

promotion to the post of Section Supervisor. Hence, merely that on the

basis of the incorrect promotion granted on the basis of the order passed by

the Tribunal, the respondents cannot be saved only on the ground that they

have been further promoted. The challenge to their promotion and to their

eligibility was pending consideration before this court, which is being

decided by this order. Hence, any benefit that accrued on the basis of the

judgment of the Tribunal, which is perverse to the settled principle of law as

well as the rules governing the servic, such promotions cannot be saved

much less the further promotion on the basis of incorrect promotion to the

post of Section Supervisor.

30. However, it may be noticed that there has been a further

selection to the post of Section Supervisor in the year 2024 and certain

persons have been promoted. In case, for those promotions, the respondent!

Social Security Assistants, become eligible, but could not be considered as

they had already been promoted, due consideration will be given as to

whether, such respondents can be accommodated against the posts, which

were advertised in the year 2024 and were filled up. However, the said

exercise will be dependent upon the decision to be taken by the department

and no specific direction is being given by this Court, even on the said

account.

31. No other argument has been raised.

32. Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances and the

CWP!24764!2021 & connected cases (22)

settled principle of law noticed hereinbefore, as the judgment of the Tribunal

dated 28.11.2019 is perverse to the settled principle of law settled by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Raj Kumar’s case (supra), the same

cannot be sustained and is, accordingly, set aside.

33. The Social Security Assistants, who have been given promotion

on the basis of the impugned judgment dated 28.11.2019 (Annexure P!1)

passed by the Tribunal, will be withdrawn and against those vacated posts,

the Senior Social Security Assistants, who competed, will be considered in

accordance with their merit and they will be entitled for promotion from the

date their junior was promoted but with notional benefits. The order be

complied with within a period eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy

of this order.

34. The writ petitions are allowed in above terms.

35. Photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected

cases.

( HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI )

JUDGE

( VIKAS SURI )

September 03, 2025 JUDGE

harish

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes

Whether reportable Yes