Case Note & Summary
The writ petition under Article 32 was referred to a three-Judge Bench to decide an important constitutional question. The petitioner association represented Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes officers in the Health Department of Government of Uttar Pradesh, which operated the Provincial Medical Health Service. Recruitment and promotions were regulated by executive instructions, and ad hoc appointments were made from 1973. The U.P. Regulation of Ad hoc Appointment Rules, 1979 was framed under the proviso to Article 309, but no statutory rules were made for regular recruitment and promotion. Until July 28, 1986, promotions up to the Director were governed by seniority subject to rejection on ground of unfitness, with prescribed minimum experience: eight years for Deputy Chief Medical Officer, two years as Deputy for Chief Medical Officer, two years as Chief for Joint Director, two years as Joint for Additional Director, and one year as Additional for Director, with merit and ability only for Director. On July 28, 1986, the State issued a memorandum increasing minimum qualifying service: twelve years for Medical Officer to Deputy Chief Medical Officer, fifteen years total for Chief Medical Officer, fifteen years total and one year for Joint Director, twenty-five years total and four years as Joint for Additional Director, and twenty-eight years total and one year as Additional for Director, with merit and ability criteria for all higher posts. The petitioner alleged this was a pretext to deny promotion to three eligible SC/ST officers as Joint Directors and higher. The State did not obtain approval from Personnel, Law and Cabinet as required for deviation. The department relaxed the minimum qualifying service immediately after the claims of general candidates arose, then restored it after their promotion. The petitioner contended the procedure was devised to avoid promotion of three SC/ST officers; the rule of minimum qualifying service was prescribed only to deny them promotion because they lacked prescribed total length while general candidates had it; the department did not obtain required approvals; and the relaxation and restoration showed pick-and-choose policy. Respondents claimed administrative experience was necessary for higher posts and that relaxation was in interest of administration, but their stand was inconsistent and vague. The Court noted that adhocism was the rule at whim. Personnel Department instructions from 1956, 1973, and 1980 mandated seniority-cum-rejection and reservation in promotions. Deviation required consultation with Personnel, Judicial, and higher orders. The impugned memo increased service requirements and introduced merit/ability, contrary to these instructions. The sequence of relaxing and restoring rules favoured general candidates and victimised SC/ST officers. The Court concluded that the circumstances clearly demonstrated mala fide exercise of power and a colourable exercise to frustrate constitutional objectives, depriving SC/ST officers of their legitimate promotion rights. The Court held that the impugned memorandum dated July 28, 1986 was issued by mala fide exercise of power with a view to deprive eligible SC/ST officers of promotion to posts to which they were entitled as Chief Medical Officers and Joint Directors. The action was arbitrary and unconstitutional, though the final operative relief is not fully extracted in the provided text.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Reservation in Promotions - Colourable Exercise of Power - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 32, Article 309 proviso - The State government issued a memorandum enhancing minimum qualifying service and introducing merit and ability criteria for promotions in the Provincial Medical Health Service, contrary to existing seniority-cum-rejection and reservation instructions. The Court found that this action was a colourable exercise of power to deny SC/ST officers their legitimate promotion rights, and that the deviation required approval from Personnel, Law and Cabinet, which was not obtained. Held that the impugned memo was mala fide and unconstitutional. (Paras Not mentioned) B) Service Law - Promotion Criteria - Seniority-cum-Rejection vs Merit and Ability - U.P. Health Department increased minimum qualifying service and prescribed merit/ability for higher posts without following prescribed procedure - The Court noted that prior instructions mandated promotion on seniority subject to rejection on ground of unfitness, with merit/ability only for Director post. The impugned memo introduced merit/ability for Chief Medical Officer and upwards, without obtaining prior approval of the three designated authorities. Held that this deviation was arbitrary and contrary to the general principles laid down by the Government. (Paras Not mentioned) C) Administrative Law - Mala Fide Exercise of Power - Pick and Choose Policy - The sequence of relaxing minimum qualifying service for general candidates immediately after SC/ST officers were excluded and then restoring it revealed a policy of pick and choose to suit convenience. The Court observed that the circumstances clearly demonstrated mala fide exercise of power by the concerned officers with a view to deprive eligible SC/ST officers of promotion to posts of Chief Medical Officers and Joint Directors. Held that the action victimised reserved category officers and created disharmony in policy. (Paras Not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the memorandum dated July 28, 1986 prescribing enhanced minimum qualifying service and merit-cum-ability for promotions in the Provincial Medical Health Service was a colourable exercise of power to deny SC/ST officers their promotion rights, and whether it violated the established seniority-cum-rejection principle and reservation policy without required approvals
Final Decision
The Court held that the impugned memorandum dated July 28, 1986 was issued by mala fide exercise of power by the concerned officers with a view to deprive eligible SC/ST officers of promotion to posts to which they were entitled as Chief Medical Officers and Joint Directors. The action was a colourable exercise of power and violated the established seniority-cum-rejection and reservation policy. The Court found the action arbitrary and unconstitutional.
Law Points
- Promotion in government service must follow seniority-cum-rejection of unfit unless valid rules prescribe otherwise
- Deviation from prescribed promotion criteria requires approval of Personnel
- Law and Cabinet
- Reservation in promotions for SC/ST officers is constitutionally protected
- Mala fide exercise of power and colourable action vitiates administrative decisions
- Article 309 proviso empowers Governor to frame rules but executive instructions must be consistent with constitutional objectives
