Supreme Court Dismisses Appeals in Kerala Ministerial Subordinate Service Promotion Rules Case; Declines to Review High Court's Striking Down of Retrospective Test Requirements. Rule 9 of Special Rules Prescribed Tests for Promotion from Lower to Upper Division Clerk; High Court Invalidated Rule as Arbitrary and Impossible; Subsequent Rules and Promotions Became Final, Leading to Dismissal.

Case Note & Summary

This case involved civil appeals by special leave before the Supreme Court of India arising from a judgment of the Kerala High Court Division Bench dated July 5, 1984 in O.P. No. 3003 of 1980. The dispute concerned promotion rules for ministerial staff in the Kerala Land Revenue Department, specifically the Kerala Ministerial Subordinate Service. The employees were divided into three groups: those allotted from the erstwhile composite Province (Madras allottees), those allotted from former Travancore-Cochin State, and those recruited to State Service on or after November 1, 1956 (Kerala recruits). The appellants belonged to the Kerala recruits category. The Government of Kerala, exercising powers under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, issued G.O.(P) No.851 dated June 16, 1980, framing Special Rules for the categories of Head Clerk/Head Accountant, Upper Division Clerk, and Lower Division Clerk. These rules were given retrospective effect from November 1, 1956. Rule 9 prescribed special qualifications for promotion: a Lower Division Clerk seeking promotion to Upper Division Clerk had to pass the Revenue Test (Travancore, Cochin, or Madras), with passing obligatory only from 14.1.1958; the Accounts Test (Lower), obligatory only from 1.1.64; and the Secretariat Manual Test up to 20.2.1958, and District Officer Manual Test thereafter. Employees from all three sources who had not passed the tests challenged Rule 9 before the High Court. The Division Bench struck down the rule, holding that since the rule was issued on June 16, 1980 but given retrospective effect from November 1, 1956, and employees were asked to pass tests with effect from January 14, 1963, it was impossible to give effect to the prescriptions of Rules 4 to 6. The High Court also held that fixation of the date January 14, 1963 was arbitrary and without any nexus. After the rule was struck down, new rules were framed in compliance with the High Court's direction on June 12, 1985. A seniority list was prepared based on the new rules, and promotions were granted accordingly. These new rules were not challenged, and the promotions became final. All Madras allottees and Travancore-Cochin allottees had retired from service; only some Kerala recruits recruited on or after November 1, 1956 might still be in service. Before the Supreme Court, the appellants contended that the High Court's view was incorrect because in Travancore-Cochin State, there was an existing rule obligating allottees to pass the required test; similarly, Madras allottees were required to pass tests under Madras Rules. Therefore, making the rule on June 16, 1980 with retrospective effect from November 1, 1956 was consequential and not an impossibility of performance provided the Madras or Travancore-Cochin allottees had the will to appear and pass the examinations. The appellants argued that those who passed the examinations were entitled to be considered and promoted over those who failed or did not appear, and that unequals could not be treated as equals for seniority and promotion. The Supreme Court, however, declined to go into the correctness of the High Court judgment for two reasons: the subsequent rules were not challenged, and the seniority and promotions made under the new rules had become final. The Court observed that all Madras allottees and Travancore-Cochin allottees had retired, and questions relating to promotion of Kerala recruits who attempted but failed or passed tests might be relevant, but since the new rules were already made and not challenged, the special rules had lost their relevance. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals without any order as to costs.

Headnote

Issue of Consideration

Final Decision

Appeals dismissed; no costs. Supreme Court declined to examine correctness of High Court judgment because subsequent rules were made, seniority and promotions finalized, and old allottees retired.

Law Points