Supreme Court overturns order declaring Ministry of Information Technology Rule 4(b) ultra vires due to lack of proper pleading

The SC set aside the HC's order declaring Rule 4(b) of Ministry of Information Technology Rules, 1998 as ultra vires. The Court held that specific pleading challenging the Rules and seeking such relief was required but conspicuously missing. Without proper pleading, the Union of India lacked opportunity to rebut the challenge or present the Rules' objectives. In a writ petition seeking certiorari against CAT's order, the HC exceeded jurisdiction by declaring the Rule ultra vires. Consequently, the respondent's grievance regarding promotion denial also failed. Appeal allowed.

---

---

Issues:
1. Challenge to judgment of High Court in Writ Petition
2. Validity of Rule 4(b) of Ministry of Information Technology Rules, 1998
3. Promotion policy under Flexible Complementing Scheme
4. Denial of promotion to Respondent No. 1
5. Jurisdiction of High Court to declare Rule 4(b) ultra vires

Analysis:

1. Challenge to High Court Judgment: The appeal was filed challenging the High Court's judgment dated 26.09.2008 in Writ Petition (C) No. 7080 of 2005. The High Court had allowed the writ petition and issued directions superseding those issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Cuttack. The Respondent No. 1 had challenged the order of the Tribunal regarding promotion.

2. Validity of Rule 4(b): The High Court declared Rule 4(b) of the Ministry of Information Technology Rules, 1998 as invalid, citing it as excessive in determining promotion criteria. The Court directed the Union of India to make necessary amendments to bring it in line with Supreme Court guidelines.

3. Promotion Policy: The promotion policy under the Flexible Complementing Scheme was to consider both marks secured on ACRs and in interviews. The Court directed that promotions should be based on combined performance in both aspects.

4. Denial of Promotion: The Respondent No. 1 had filed a writ petition seeking promotion from Scientist 'D' to 'E' w.e.f. 01.01.2001. The High Court's order set aside the CAT's decision but did not challenge Rule 4(b) validity in the original application, leading to the High Court's declaration being set aside.

5. Jurisdiction of High Court: The High Court's declaration of Rule 4(b) as ultra vires was set aside as there was no challenge to the rule in the original application or the writ petition. The Court emphasized the importance of specific pleading to challenge rules and seeking appropriate relief.

This detailed analysis covers the key issues involved in the legal judgment, providing a comprehensive understanding of the case and the Court's decisions.

---