TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court decision on filling vacancies based on seniority and merit criteria</h1> <h3>H.C. Kulwant Singh and others. Appellants Versus H.C. Daya Ram and others</h3> H.C. Kulwant Singh and others. Appellants Versus H.C. Daya Ram and others - TMI Issues Involved:1. Interpretation of Punjab Police Rules, 1934, specifically Rule 13.7.2. Validity of amendments to Rule 13.7 on 4.3.1982 and 17.6.1988.3. Jurisdiction and correctness of the High Court's decision dated 18.12.2007.4. Seniority and promotion criteria for constables to Head Constables.5. Non-impleadment of necessary parties in the tribunal's proceedings.6. Application of principles of delay and laches.7. Invocation of Article 142 of the Constitution for complete justice.Detailed Analysis:1. Interpretation of Punjab Police Rules, 1934, specifically Rule 13.7:The Supreme Court had to interpret Rule 13.7 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, as it governs the promotion of constables in Chandigarh Police to the post of Head Constable. The original Rule 13.7 required a test for constables for admission to List 'B' for the Lower School Course. This rule was amended on 4.3.1982 to remove the test, making seniority-cum-merit the criterion for promotion. Another amendment on 17.6.1988 reinstated the test for promotion.2. Validity of amendments to Rule 13.7 on 4.3.1982 and 17.6.1988:The amendments to Rule 13.7 were a focal point. The amendment on 4.3.1982 removed the test requirement, making seniority-cum-merit the basis for promotion. The subsequent amendment on 17.6.1988 reinstated the test. The Court had to decide whether the amendments were valid and applicable to the constables who were already in service before the amendments.3. Jurisdiction and correctness of the High Court's decision dated 18.12.2007:The High Court's decision dated 18.12.2007 quashed the tribunal's orders dated 8.1.1990 and 23.9.1998. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court acted within its jurisdiction and applied well-settled principles correctly. The High Court had held that the vacancies occurring between 4.3.1982 and 17.6.1988 should be filled based on seniority-cum-merit, while those occurring after 17.6.1988 should be filled based on the test.4. Seniority and promotion criteria for constables to Head Constables:The tribunal initially held that constables confirmed before 17.6.1988 had a vested right to be considered for promotion based on the pre-amended Rule 13.7 (seniority-cum-merit). The High Court disagreed, stating that only vacancies occurring between 4.3.1982 and 17.6.1988 should be filled based on seniority-cum-merit, and all other vacancies should be filled based on the test rule.5. Non-impleadment of necessary parties in the tribunal's proceedings:The respondents were not made parties in the tribunal's proceedings, which affected their seniority and promotion. The Supreme Court noted that non-impleadment of necessary parties violates principles of natural justice, rendering the tribunal's orders null and void concerning those parties.6. Application of principles of delay and laches:The High Court repelled the contention of delay and laches, noting that the special leave petition was dismissed as infructuous only in 1996, and the ultimate order dated 23.9.1998 affected the petitioners. The Supreme Court concurred, stating that the principle of delay and laches did not apply as the respondents were not parties to the earlier proceedings.7. Invocation of Article 142 of the Constitution for complete justice:The Supreme Court invoked Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice. It noted that the earlier order of the tribunal was legally sound, but the subsequent order dated 8.1.1990 misunderstood the ratio laid down in Achhar Chand's case. The Court held that non-affirmance of the High Court's order would result in a miscarriage of justice, and thus, upheld the High Court's decision.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, quashing the tribunal's orders dated 8.1.1990 and 23.9.1998. It held that the vacancies occurring between 4.3.1982 and 17.6.1988 should be filled based on seniority-cum-merit, while those occurring after 17.6.1988 should be filled based on the test. The Court emphasized the importance of impleading necessary parties and invoked Article 142 to ensure complete justice.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
