Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose in the context of service absorption in the Central Public Works Department (CPWD). The respondent was initially appointed as a Junior Engineer in CPWD on March 1, 1977, on the basis of competitive examinations held by the Director General (Works). Later, in 1982, he was selected as Assistant Engineer by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) and was appointed in that capacity by the Director General (Works), CPWD, by proceedings dated July 14, 1987. Having worked in CPWD for 18 years, the respondent claimed absorption in CPWD as Assistant Engineer, relying on Rule 15 of the Combined Service Examination Rules, 1989. Rule 15 provided that departmental candidates would first be considered for appointment to posts in their own department, and only in the event of non-availability of vacancies or medical unfitness would they be allotted to other ministries/departments. The Central Administrative Tribunal, by order dated January 23, 1996 in O.A. No. 1565 of 1991, accepted the respondent's claim and directed the petitioners to adjust him against the vacancy of one Shri Ravi Amrohi, or against the next available vacancy, with all consequential benefits as regards seniority. The Union of India and others filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court, contending that the Government's intention was to adjust candidates from the department in order of merit, and since the respondent had secured 295th rank while others similarly selected were placed higher, he could not be adjusted in CPWD. The petitioners also relied on the amended Rule of 1990. The Supreme Court found no force in the contention. The Court observed that although the respondent's name appeared lower in the merit list than others, the list indicated that candidates with higher merit than the respondent had already been allotted to CPWD in order of merit. Rule 15, as it existed at the relevant time, clearly envisaged that when recruitment was made and a candidate was duly selected, he should be appointed and adjusted in the vacancies existing in the department where he had been working. Only if no vacancy existed or the candidate was medically unfit could he be allotted elsewhere. The subsequent amendment had no effect of taking away the respondent's right to absorption when the unamended Rule was in force. The Court held that the Tribunal was right in giving the direction. Accordingly, the special leave petition was dismissed. No costs were ordered.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Recruitment and Absorption - Departmental candidates priority in own department - Combined Service Examination Rules, 1989, Rule 15 - The respondent worked in CPWD for 18 years and was selected as Assistant Engineer through UPSC. The Tribunal directed adjustment against a vacancy with consequential benefits. The Supreme Court held that Rule 15 requires departmental candidates to be first considered for appointment in their own department, and only if no vacancy or medical unfitness should they be allotted elsewhere. Held that the Tribunal's direction was correct (Paras 1-2). B) Service Law - Amendment of Rules - Retrospective application - Combined Service Examination Rules, 1989, Rule 15 as amended in 1990 - The petitioners relied on the 1990 amendment to justify downgrading the respondent. The Court held that the subsequent amendment did not take away the respondent's accrued right to absorption under the unamended Rule 15 as it existed at the time of selection. Held that subsequent amendment cannot operate retrospectively to deprive a vested right (Paras 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent, a CPWD employee selected as Assistant Engineer through UPSC, was entitled to absorption in CPWD under Rule 15 of the Combined Service Examination Rules, 1989, despite lower merit rank and subsequent amendment of the Rules
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition, holding that the Tribunal was right in directing the adjustment of the respondent against a vacancy with consequential benefits. Rule 15 as in vogue required departmental candidates to be first adjusted in their own department unless no vacancy or medical unfitness, and the subsequent amendment did not take away the respondent's accrued right.
Law Points
- Departmental candidates must first be considered for appointment in their own department under Rule 15 of Combined Service Examination Rules
- 1989
- unless no vacancy or medical unfitness
- subsequent amendment cannot retrospectively take away accrued right
- merit ranking alone cannot override specific rule protecting departmental candidates
- Tribunal direction to adjust employee against vacancy with consequential seniority upheld
