Case Note & Summary
The appeal was filed by the Union of India and others against the judgment of the High Court of Orissa, which had declared Rule 4(b) of the Ministry of Information Technology (In-situ promotion under Flexible Complementing Scheme) Rules, 1998 as ultra vires. The respondent, Manjurani Routray, had previously filed O.A. No. 148 of 2001 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) challenging the denial of her promotion to 'Scientist E'. The CAT had directed the respondents to clarify the promotion guidelines but did not quash the promotion orders of her juniors. Routray subsequently filed W.P. (C) No. 7080 of 2005, seeking to set aside the CAT's order. The High Court, however, declared Rule 4(b) invalid, which was not challenged in the writ petition. The Supreme Court found that the High Court acted beyond its jurisdiction by declaring the rule ultra vires without proper grounds being set forth in the pleadings. The Court noted that the promotion policy had been modified following the sixth pay commission recommendations and that Routray had already been promoted during the pendency of the writ petition. The Supreme Court ultimately set aside the High Court's declaration, stating that the grievance regarding the denial of promotion did not arise due to the validity of Rule 4(b). The appeal was allowed without costs, and the impleaded parties were removed from the proceedings.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Ultra Vires - Declaration of Rule 4(b) as Ultra Vires - Ministry of Information Technology (In-situ promotion under Flexible Complementing Scheme) Rules, 1998 - High Court declared Rule 4(b) invalid without proper challenge in pleadings or relief sought. Court held that absence of specific pleading and grounds for challenging the rule precluded the High Court from exercising jurisdiction to declare it ultra vires (Paras 8-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in declaring Rule 4(b) of the Ministry of Information Technology (In-situ promotion under Flexible Complementing Scheme) Rules, 1998 as ultra vires.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's declaration of Rule 4(b) as ultra vires, stating that the absence of specific pleading and grounds for challenging the rule precluded the High Court from exercising jurisdiction. The appeal was allowed without costs.
Law Points
- Ultra vires
- promotion policy
- procedural defects
- Flexible Complementing Scheme
- judicial review
