Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned the method of appointment to the post of General Manager in U.P. State Tourism Development Corporation, a government undertaking registered under the Companies Act. Respondent No.1, I.B. Misra, joined the Corporation as Manager Grade-II in 1978 and was promoted to Manager Grade-I in 1984. He was selected for the post of Project Officer in 1989 but was not appointed, leading to a pending writ petition. While that petition was pending, a vacancy arose in the post of General Manager, a Class I post governed by Rule 19 of the U.P. State Tourism Development Corporation Rules, 1981. Respondent No.1 filed Writ Petition No. 677 of 1992 before the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Corporation to hold selection for the General Manager post in accordance with the Rules. His grievance was that since 1981 the post had been filled exclusively by deputation of state government officers and that no selection had ever been conducted, despite Rule 19 permitting selection. He also contended that deputationists lacked the required qualifications mentioned in a 1987 advertisement. The High Court allowed the writ petition by judgment dated March 24, 1994, directing the Corporation to make selection within four months and ordering that the deputation of the incumbent would end after four months. The Corporation's review petition was dismissed on May 30, 1994, leading to the appeals before the Supreme Court. The appellant argued that the 1987 advertisement was for an additional post that was never created, and that the General Manager post required high administrative capacity, which justified filling it by deputation from among senior government officers. The Supreme Court examined Rule 19 and noted that it prescribes five methods of appointment for various posts, but specifically provides that all Class I posts are selection posts to be filled by selection or by deputation. Class II and Class III posts have express provisions for promotion, but there is no provision for promotion to Class I posts. Eligible Corporation employees can compete for selection, but they have no right to promotion. The High Court had construed Rule 19 as requiring Class I posts to be filled first by promotion of eligible Corporation officers on seniority-cum-merit, then by deputation, and last by direct selection. The Supreme Court held this construction was impermissible because it carved out a third mode of appointment not provided in Rule 19. The Court distinguished the Gujarat Housing Board Engineers Association decision relied on by the High Court, observing that Regulation 3 of the Gujarat Housing Board Regulations contained an express clause prioritizing promotion, whereas Rule 19 had no similar provision. The Court concluded that Rule 19 left it to the Corporation to make appointment to Class I post either by selection or by deputation, and no direction to prioritize selection over deputation could be read into the rule. Accordingly, the Supreme Court found the High Court's view erroneous and allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's directions.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Recruitment and Appointment - Class I Posts - U.P. State Tourism Development Corporation Rules, 1981, Rule 19 - Rule 19 provides five modes of appointment but for Class I posts specifically states they shall be selection posts and shall be filled by selection or deputation; eligible Corporation employees may compete for selection but no provision for promotion exists. The High Court erred in reading promotion as the first mode for Class I posts based on seniority-cum-merit, then deputation, then direct selection; such a third mode of promotion is not permissible under Rule 19. Held that appointment to Class I posts under Rule 19 is restricted to selection or deputation, and the Corporation has discretion to choose either method (Paras 3-9). B) Precedent - Applicability - Gujarat Housing Board Engineers Association & Anr. v. State of Gujarat, JT 1993 (6) S.C. 469 - Distinguishable - Regulation 3 of Gujarat Housing Board Services Classifications and Recruitment Regulations, 1981 contained clause (3) expressly requiring promotion of Executive Engineers first, whereas Rule 19 has no analogous priority clause. The High Court's reliance on that decision was misplaced because the language of Rule 19 is materially different and does not support a promotion-first interpretation for Class I posts. Held that the Gujarat Housing Board precedent could not be applied to Rule 19, and the High Court's construction was impermissible (Paras 10-11).
Issue of Consideration
Interpretation of Rule 19 of the U.P. State Tourism Development Corporation Rules, 1981 regarding permissible modes of appointment to Class I posts, specifically whether promotion is an available mode for filling the post of General Manager
Final Decision
The Supreme Court held that the High Court's interpretation of Rule 19 was impermissible. Rule 19 of U.P. State Tourism Development Corporation Rules, 1981 restricts appointment to Class I posts to selection or deputation only; no promotion is permissible. The High Court's direction to fill the post by promotion was erroneous. The appeals were allowed and the High Court's directions were set aside.
Law Points
- Rule 19 of U.P. State Tourism Development Corporation Rules
- 1981 prescribes five methods for appointments but for Class I posts only selection or deputation are permitted
- no promotion for Class I posts
- eligible Corporation employees may compete for selection but have no right to promotion
- the Corporation has discretion to choose either selection or deputation for Class I posts
- High Court cannot add a third mode of promotion by interpretation
- Gujarat Housing Board Engineers Association v. State of Gujarat is distinguishable because Regulation 3 of Gujarat Housing Board Regulations expressly prioritized promotion
- whereas Rule 19 has no such provision
