2022 (3) TMI 552 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Upholds Recruitment Rules 2016, Employer Discretion on Transfers, Consideration for Spouses, Disabled, Compassionate Cases

SK Nausad Rahaman & Ors. Versus Union of India and Ors.

SK Nausad Rahaman & Ors. Versus Union of India and Ors. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Validity of the withdrawal of Inter-Commissionerate Transfers (ICTs)2. Interpretation of Recruitment Rules 2016 (RR 2016) and their impact on ICTs3. Applicability of executive instructions and circulars in the absence of specific provisions in RR 20164. Alleged discrimination and violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the ConstitutionDetailed Analysis:1. Validity of the withdrawal of Inter-Commissionerate Transfers (ICTs):The High Court of Kerala dealt with petitions challenging the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal on the withdrawal of ICTs. The High Court concluded that the Recruitment Rules 2016 (RR 2016) do not contain any provision for ICTs and stipulate that each Cadre Controlling Authority (CCA) will have its own separate cadre. The High Court held that ICTs would violate the unique identity of each cadre envisaged under Rule 5 of RR 2016, and hence, the circular withdrawing ICTs is not invalid.2. Interpretation of Recruitment Rules 2016 (RR 2016) and their impact on ICTs:RR 2016 replaced RR 2002, which had a specific provision for ICTs under Rule 4(ii). Rule 5 of RR 2016, however, does not contain a similar provision and stipulates that each CCA shall have its own separate cadre unless otherwise directed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC). The absence of Rule 4(ii) in RR 2016 indicates that the cadre is treated as a posting unit, and there is no provision for absorbing persons from outside the cadre.3. Applicability of executive instructions and circulars in the absence of specific provisions in RR 2016:The appellants argued that in the absence of a specific provision for ICTs in RR 2016, the executive instructions and circulars issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) and the Department of Revenue should govern ICTs. However, the court held that executive instructions could supplement but not override the rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. Since RR 2016 do not provide for ICTs, the executive instructions cannot be used to allow ICTs.4. Alleged discrimination and violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution:The appellants contended that the circular dated 20 September 2018, which imposes a blanket prohibition on ICTs, violates the fundamental rights conferred by Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. They argued that the circular discriminates between Group 'A' and Group 'B'/'C' employees and results in indirect discrimination against women, violating Articles 15(1) and 16(1) of the Constitution. The court held that transfer is an incident of service, and it is within the employer's powers to take a policy decision either to grant or not to grant ICTs. The court emphasized that judicial review cannot interfere with such policy decisions unless they violate constitutional values.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, stating that:- RR 2016 do not contain a provision for ICTs.- Rule 5 of RR 2016 stipulates that each CCA shall have its own separate cadre unless directed otherwise by CBEC.- ICTs would violate the unique identity of each cadre envisaged in Rule 5.- The circular dated 20 September 2018 is valid as it aligns with RR 2016.- Transfer is a condition of service, and policy decisions regarding ICTs are within the employer's discretion.- The court left it open to the respondents to revisit the policy to accommodate the posting of spouses, the needs of the disabled, and compassionate grounds, ensuring that constitutional values are protected.