- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Dr. Rajinder Singh v. State Of Punjab And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant challenged the recommendations made by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) on 14-1-1998 that led to the promotion of Respondent 3 to the post of Deputy Director (Health Services). The writ petition before the High Court contended that Respondent 3 lacked the qualifications prescribed under the Punjab Civil Medical State Service (Class I) Rules, 1972 (“PCMS Class I Rules”). The High Court dismissed the petition, relying on a Government notification dated 9-4-1989 that purported to treat PCMS Class II officers as PCMS Class I, and concluded that no formal amendment of the Rules was necessary. The appellant sought relief from the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a Government notification dated 9-4-1989 could, without formal amendment under Article 309 of the Constitution, equate PCMS Class II officers with PCMS Class I officers for purposes of promotion.
- Whether Respondent 3 satisfied the eligibility requirement of having been a member of PCMS Class I for at least ten years under Rule 9-A(c) of the PCMS Class I Rules at the time the DPC considered his promotion.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court emphasized that the service conditions of both the appellant and Respondent 3 are governed by the PCMS Class I Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. Rule 9-A(c) unequivocally requires ten years of membership in PCMS Class I for promotion to Deputy Director. The Court observed:
- It was undisputed that Respondent 3 had not completed the requisite ten years in PCMS Class I on the crucial date of consideration by the DPC.
- The notification of 9-4-1989 itself contemplated subsequent amendments to the service rules, acknowledging that mere issuance of the notification could not alter statutory requirements.
- Substituting or amending statutory rules through executive orders, notifications, or circulars would violate the constitutional scheme and undermine the security of tenure and equality guaranteed to civil servants.
Consequently, the Court held that the DPC erred in relying on the notification instead of adhering to the statutory rules, rendering its recommendation—and the resultant promotion—legally unsustainable.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Allowed; DPC recommendation and Respondent 3’s promotion set aside.
The post of Deputy Director (Health Services) is declared vacant. The State of Punjab must constitute a fresh DPC to consider all eligible officers, including the appellant and Respondent 3, strictly in accordance with the PCMS Class I Rules and “totally ignoring” the notification dated 9-4-1989. The decision directly affects only the parties involved and does not articulate broader precedent beyond reaffirming that statutory service rules cannot be amended by executive notification.
R.P Sethi, J.— Leave granted.
2. Aggrieved by the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee held on 14-1-1998 and consequential promotion of Respondent 3 as Deputy Director (Health Services), the appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court mainly on the ground that the respondent promotee did not possess the requisite qualifications under the Service Rules applicable in the case. Relying upon the notification dated 9-4-1989 which treated PCMS Class II as PCMS Class I, the High Court dismissed the writ petition observing that for the purpose of treating PCMS Class II as PCMS Class I, there was no necessity of amending the Rules. The High Court, however, held that Rule 9-A of the Rules applicable in the case provided that for the post of Deputy Director, a person should be member of Class I at least for a period of 10 years.
3. It is not disputed that service conditions of the appellant and Respondent 3 are governed by the statutory rules made in exercise of the powers conferred upon the Government under Article 309 of the Constitution which are known as the Punjab Civil Medical State Service (Class I) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “the PCMS Class I Rules”). Rule 9 deals with the matters of recruitment and provides that recruitment to any post in service excepting the post of Director (Health Services), Joint Director (Health Services) and Deputy Director (Health Services) be made in the manner prescribed therein. Rule 9-A dealing with the appointment to the senior posts provides:
“Appointment to senior posts.—No person shall be appointed—
(a) to the post of Director, Health Services, unless he has an experience of working on the post of Joint Director, Health Services for a minimum of one year;
(b) to the post of Joint Director, Health Services, unless he has been a member of service for a minimum period of twelve years including two years as Deputy Director, Health Services; and
(c) to the post of Deputy Director, Health Services, unless he has been a member of the service for a minimum period of ten years.”
4. According to sub-rule (c) of Rule 9-A, a person cannot be appointed to the post of Deputy Director unless he has been the member of the service for a minimum period of 10 years. “Service” has been defined as: “Service means the Punjab Civil Medical (State Service Class I).”
5. It has not been disputed before us that on the relevant date when Respondent 3 was recommended for promotion, he had not completed 10 years of service within the meaning of Rule 9-A read with Rule 2(2) of the PCMS Class I Rules. As Respondent 3 was not possessing the requisite qualifications on the relevant date, he could not be considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Director, Health Services.
6. We do not agree with the High Court that even without amending the Rules, the respondent State could have declared PCMS Class II as PCMS Class I. The notification dated 9-4-1989 reads as:
“In pursuance of the recommendations of the Committee for the removal of anomalies in the revised scales of pay of Punjab Civil Medical Services, the President of India is pleased to declare PCMS (Class II) as PCMS (Class I). There will be only one service with the nomenclature of PCMS (Class I) with effect from 1-1-1986.
The necessary amendments in the service rules of PCMS (Class II) and PCMS (Class I) will be made separately.
This issue is with the concurrence of the Finance Department conveyed vide their ID No. 10/27/89-FPI, dated 20-3-1989.”
(emphasis supplied)
A perusal of the notification clearly indicates that the Government itself was aware that the two classes of service cannot be equated or treated alike without amending the Rules. There is no dispute that the Rules have not been amended so far. The Departmental Promotion Committee, therefore, erred in recommending the promotion of Respondent 3, ignoring the Rules and only relying upon a notification.
7. The settled position of law is that no government order, notification or circular can be a substitute of the statutory rules framed with the authority of law. Following any other course would be disastrous inasmuch as it would deprive the security of tenure and right of equality conferred upon the civil servants under the constitutional scheme. It would be negating the so far accepted service jurisprudence. We are of the firm view that the High Court was not justified in observing that even without the amendment of the Rules, Class II of the service can be treated as Class I only by way of notification. Following such a course in effect amounts to amending the rules by a government order and ignoring the mandate of Article 309 of the Constitution.
8. As Respondent 3 was not eligible for consideration to the post of Deputy Director, Health Services, the Departmental Promotion Committee committed a mistake in recommending him. Consequent promotion of Respondent 3 on the basis of recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee being contrary to law is liable to be set aside.
9. Learned counsel appearing for both the parties addressed arguments regarding the claims and counter-claims of the appellant and Respondent 3 to the post of Deputy Director, Health Services to which Respondent 3 is stated to have become eligible by now. We refrain to comment upon such submissions in view of the order which we propose to pass in this appeal.
10. Accordingly this appeal is allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment. The recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee and consequential promotion to the post of Deputy Director, Health Services is set aside and the said post of Deputy Director, Health Services in the State of Punjab is declared to have fallen vacant forthwith. The respondent State is directed to appoint a fresh Departmental Promotion Committee which shall consider the cases of all the eligible officers including the appellant and Respondent 3 and recommend for promotion any of the eligible persons from the service in accordance with the Service Rules totally ignoring notification dated 9-4-1989.
11. No costs.
Alert