1991 (2) TMI 425 - SC - Indian Laws

Rajasthan Administrative Service: Merit-Based Super Time Scale Posts Affirmed as Highest

Ajeet Singh Singhvi and Ors. Versus State of Rajasthan

Ajeet Singh Singhvi and Ors. Versus State of Rajasthan - TMI Issues Involved:1. Whether the Super Time scale is/are the highest post/posts in the Rajasthan Administrative Service.2. Whether the highest post/posts are to be filled on the basis of seniority-cum-merit in the proportion of 50:50 or on merit alone in accordance with Sub-rule (7) of Rule 28-B of the Rajasthan Administrative Service Rules, 1954.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Whether the Super Time scale is/are the highest post/posts in the Rajasthan Administrative ServiceThe appellants, who were high-ranked officers in the Rajasthan Administrative Service, challenged the amendments to the Rajasthan Administrative Service Rules, 1954, effective from July 17, 1987. These amendments introduced a Super Time scale to address stagnation in service. The appellants contended that the creation of the Super Time scale did not automatically create the highest post/posts to be filled by merit alone. They argued that the posts to which the Super Time scale applied were merely higher posts, not the highest posts, which should be filled based on a 50:50 ratio of merit and seniority-cum-merit.The High Court, in its judgment dated April 30, 1988, traced the history of the Rules and amendments and concluded that the Super Time scale posts were indeed the highest posts in the service. The High Court held that these posts were to be filled on merit alone, not on a 50:50 basis of merit and seniority-cum-merit.The Supreme Court noted that the term 'highest' was not explicitly defined in the Rules and had to be understood in its ordinary meaning. Rule 6 of the Rules gives the government flexibility in determining the strength and nature of posts. The latest notification, dated January 12, 1988, categorized posts into seven categories, with the Super Time scale posts being the highest in terms of pay scale.The Court observed that prior to the amendment, the highest post was not clearly identified. The appellants argued that the posts now falling under the Super Time scale were previously considered higher posts. However, the government notification of January 12, 1988, designated these posts as the highest posts for valid administrative reasons.Issue 2: Whether the highest post/posts are to be filled on the basis of seniority-cum-merit in the proportion of 50:50 or on merit alone in accordance with Sub-rule (7) of Rule 28-B of the RulesSub-rule (7) of Rule 28-B states that selection for promotion to the highest post/posts in the State Service shall always be made on the basis of merit alone. The appellants contended that before the amendment, promotions to higher posts were made on a 50:50 basis of merit and seniority-cum-merit. They argued that the introduction of the Super Time scale should not change this ratio.The Court reviewed Rule 28-B, which outlines the criteria and procedure for promotions. Sub-rule (7) clearly mandates that the highest posts are to be filled on merit alone. The Court also referred to Rule 32, which prescribes the appointment to senior, selection scale, and Super Time scale posts. The procedure for selection by merit is the same as provided in Rule 28-B, including Sub-rule (7).The Court applied the rule of harmonious construction, as established in previous judgments, to interpret the Rules. It concluded that the terms 'higher post' and 'highest post' are relative and can be determined by the government under Rule 6. The amendments of July 17, 1987, and the notification of January 12, 1988, effectively identified the Super Time scale posts as the highest posts, to be filled on merit alone.The Court also emphasized that the government's stance, as the author of the Rules, carries significant weight. The explanation added to Sub-rule (8) of Rule 28-B allows the government to resolve any doubts about the categorization of posts. The government's view that the Super Time scale posts are the highest posts reflects its policy and should be given due consideration.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's interpretation that the Super Time scale posts are the highest posts in the Rajasthan Administrative Service. These posts are to be filled on the basis of merit alone, not on a 50:50 basis of merit and seniority-cum-merit. The appeals were dismissed, and no order as to costs was made.