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, was a Principal System Analyst who had challenged the denial of her promotion to 'Scientist E' after her juniors were promoted. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) had previously directed the respondents to clarify the promotion guidelines but did not quash the promotion orders of the juniors. Routray filed a writ petition seeking to set aside the CAT's order, but did not challenge the vires of Rule 4(b) in her petition. The High Court, however, declared the rule invalid, which led to the appeal. The Supreme Court found that the High Court acted beyond its jurisdiction as there were no pleadings or grounds challenging the rule in the writ petition. The Court set aside the High Court's declaration, stating that the grievance regarding the denial of promotion was also rendered moot. The Court noted that Routray had already been promoted and reached superannuation. The appeal was allowed, and no costs were awarded.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Ultra Vires - Declaration of Rule 4(b) - Ministry of Information Technology (In-situ Promotion under Flexible Complementing Scheme) Rules, 1998 - High Court declared Rule 4(b) ultra vires without any challenge or pleading in the writ petition, which was a procedural defect. The Supreme Court held that the High Court should not have exercised jurisdiction to declare the rule invalid in absence of specific grounds and relief sought (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 allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's declaration of Rule 4(b) as ultra vires, and noted that the respondent had already been promoted.
Law Points
- Promotion policy
- Flexible Complementing Scheme
- ultra vires declaration
- procedural defects
- judicial review
