This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2008] 6 S.C.R. 1055
A
.... -;
A. SATYANARAYANA & ORS.
v
S. PURUSHOTHAM & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2963 of 2008)
APRIL 24, 2008
B
(S.B. SINHA AND SIRPURKAR, JJ.)
~-
Andhra Pradesh Secretariat service Rules. 1998:
<
) -+
r3- Note (3) - Promotion - Quota for SOs and PSs for promotion to the post of Assistant Secretary - By G. Os.c promotional posts for PSs limited to 10 in the cadres of Assistant Secretary, Deputy Secretary, Joint Secretary and Additional Secretary- Held: State, while providing two different sources as feeder posts for promotion to a higher post, is entitled to fix quota even at all levels of promotion, but it cannot D be permitted to put a cap on promotion for the entire service period - State cannot say that a few posts shall be identified only on the basis of original posts held by employee concerned - By a policy all promotional avenues in respect of a category of employees for all times to come cannot be E nullified, as the same would be hit by Article 16 of the Constitution - Impugned G. Os. set aside - Constitution of India - Article 14 and 16 .
Judicial review :
F
4 t ~
Policy decision by State - Held: Superior Courts while exercising power of judicial review must determine the issue having regard to the effect of subordinate legislation - A statutory rule must be made in consonance with constitutional scheme - Administrative Law - Subordinate Legislation.
G
In the Secretariat of the Government of Andhra Pradesh the posts of Section Officers (SOs) and Private Secretaries (PSs) were the feeder posts for promotion to the post of Assistant Secretary. The Assistant Secretaries 1055
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1056
[2008] 6 S.C.R.
A were further promoted to the posts of Deputy Secretary, Joint Secretary and Additional Secretary to Government. By G. 0. dated 21.10.1983, a quota of 1:19 for PSs and SOs was prescribed for promotion to the post of Assistant Secretary. Later, on the recommendations made by the B Cabinet Sub-committee, noticing the permanent cadre strength of SOs as 365 and of PSs as 25, the ratio between SOs and PSs was worked out as 14:1. The total number of posts of Assistant Secretaries, Deputy Secretaries, Joint Secretaries and Additional Secretaries was 151. By C G.O.Ms.No. 368 dated 18.8.1999, the Government directed that 10 posts would be earmarked for PSs in the promotional posts of Assistant Secretaries to Additional Secretaries and that the number of PSs on these promotional posts should not exceed at any given point 0of time. Consequently, the Andhra Pradesh Secretariat Service Rules, 1989 were amended by G.O.Ms No. 397dated 20.9.1999 and Note (3) to Rule 3 of the Rules was accordingly substituted. The PSs challenged validity of G.O.Ms. 368 and 397 by filing an original application before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The E Tribunal held that G.O.Ms 368 and 397 limiting the number of promotional posts to PSs at 10 at any given point of time, were arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In the writ petitions filed by the SOs, the High Court held that though the F impugned amendment was no doubt peculiar, but, instead of normal practice of prescribing a ratio or quota, limiting the total number of post for PSs to 10, by itself, would not render the impugned amendment to the Rules ultra vires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The High Court G further observed that principles of judicial review did not permit the court to examine the policy choice of the rule making authority. Aggrieved, the PSs filed the instant appeals.
}
+1
Allowing the appeal3, the Court
A. SATYANARAYANA & ORS. v. S. PURUSHOTHAM
1057
} ---1~
& ORS.
-'<-
-t
i j-
-·
HELD: 1.1 Quota in ordinary parlance would mean A proportionate share. The State, indisputably, when provides for two different sources as feeder posts for · promotion to a higher post, is entitled to fix quota. Whereas the power of the State to fix the quota keeping in view the fact situation obtaining in a given case must B be conceded, but the same .cannot be violative of the constitutional scheme of equality as contemplated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. A policy decision and, in particular, legislative policy, should not ordinarily be interfered with and the superior Courts, while exercising its power of judicial review, shall not consider as to whether such policy decision has been taken mala fide or not. But where a policy decision as reflected in a statutory rule pertains to the field of subordinate legislation, indisputably, the same would be amenable to judicial review, inter a/ia, on the ground of being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. [para 13, 20] " [1068-E; 1072-8-E]
Vasu Dev Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. 2006 (1) SCALE 108; and State of Kera/a & Ors. v. Unni & Anr (2007) 2 sec 365 - relied on
1.2 The Superior Courts, while exercising their power of judicial review, must determine the issue having regard to the effect of the subordinate legislation in question. There must exist a rational nexus between the impugned legislation and the object of promotion. Promotions are granted to a higher post to avoid stagnation as also frustration amongst the employees. Although mere chance of promotion is not a fundamental right, but right to be considered therefor is. In that view of the matter, by a policy all promotional avenues in respect of a category of employees for all time to come cannot be nullified and the same would be hit by Article 16 of the Constitution of India. The High Court, therefore, was not wholly correct when it opined that a policy decision cannot be a subject H
D
E
F
G
[2008] 6 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1058
~ ......
i
A matter of judicial review. [para 21, 25 and 27] [1073-D; 1074-C; 1072-F]
Food Corporation of India and Ors. v. Parashotam Das Bansal and Ors. 2008(2) SCR 412 - relied on.
B 2.1 In the instant case, Note (3) to Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Secretariat Service Rules, 1998 which was substituted by G.O.Ms No.397 does not speak of any quota. It confines the number of posts for PSs to 10 at any given point of time. The number of 10 posts can be filled up only convacationofapostof AssistantSecretary/Deputy Secretary/Joint Secretary/ Additional Secretary. It does not appear from the impugned GOMs that the State intends to strive to maintain tl).e'rafio of 14:1 in the posts of Assistant Secretaries onwards. The impugned rule does not take into consideration the events which may take D place in future, like increase in the strength in the cadre. If the number of posts for promotion is limited to 10, even when the number of posts has gone up, the same would contravene the ratio of 14:1. Indisputably, the State was entitled to provide for quota as also a guideline as to how Ethe roster should work out itself, but thereby it cannot be permitted to put a cap on promotion for the entire service period .. If the Government intends to change the ratio, it may do so But what is impermissible is laying down a condition subsequerit to adoption of a policy decision Fwhich defeats the object and purport thereof. [para16, 18, and 31] [1071-E, H; 1072-A; 1075-C-E]
2.2 It may be that the State may evolve a policy of prescribing a reasonable quota at all levels of the promotion, but it cannot say that a few posts shall be Gidentified only on the basisof the original posts held by the employees concerned. To that extent, the rule maintains a birthmark which runs counter to the decisions of this Court. [para 26-27] [1073-H; 1074-A-B]
~j
.,.. .
Dwarka Prasad & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2003) 6 H sec 535 - relied on.
1059
i __l.
A. SATYANARAYANA & ORS. v. S. PURUSHOTHAM & ORS .
2.3 It has not been disputed that a panel is required A to be prepared every year. The High Court, in its judgment, has considered the question only with reference to upward mobility. From the Rules, it furthermore appears that even the SOs can be transferred to the posts of PSs. Who ,WOt,1ld b.e holding what post, even at a subordinate B +lev·el, ·may, thus,bea questionof chance. Grievancesof SOs have been taken into consideration amending the ratio from 19:1to14:1. No exception thereto can be taken, but hardship faced by a section of employees in the past, by itself, cannot be a ground to deprive another section c of their constitutional and legal right. Indisputably, the Tribunal, committed an error in directing the State to consider promotion to the Private Secretaries in the ratio of 1:14 whereas in terms of Rules it should be 14:1. The Tribunal, thus wrongly recorded the ratio as 1 :14 instead of 14:1. [para 13, 17, 28 and 29) [1074-D, E, G, H; 1075-A;D __l. 1068-E-F; 1071-F]
.,.-
2.4 A statutory rule, it is a trite law, must be made in consonance with constitutional scheme. A rule must not ·be arbitrary. It must be reasonable, be it substantive or a E . subordinate legislation. The Legislature, it is presumed, · would be a reasonable one. Indisputably, the subordinate legislation may reflect the experience of the Rule maker, but the same must be capable of being taken to a logical conclusion. In this view of the matter, the impugned Government Orders cannot be sustained and are setF aside. [para 32 and 33) [1075-E-G]
CIVILA PPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2963 of 2008.
·--'
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.8.2006 of the High G Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in W.P. No. 16842, 14651 of 2000 and 8551 of 2001.
WITH
Civil Appeal No. 2964 of 2008
H
1060 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 6 S.C.R.
.,_~
..L. 1
A L.N. Rao, P.P. Rao, R. Santhan Krishnan, K. Radha Rani, Praveen Kumar Pandey, P. Vijaya Kumar, D. Mahesh Babu and Anil Kumar Tandale for the Appellants.
M.L. Varma, TLV Iyer, D. Bharathi Reddy, Satya Mitra, G. Ramakrishna Prasad, Suyodhan Byrapaneni, G. Arun and B Siddharth Patnaik for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted.
c 2. Interpretation of GOMs. No.368 dated 18.8.1999 is in question in these appeals which arise out of a judgment and order dated 21.8.2006 passed by a Division Bench oftheAndhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition Nos.8551/01, 14651/2000 and 16842/2000.
D 3. Respondents herein were Private Secretaries (PSs) of the Secretaries of the Government of Andhra Pradesh. Appellants of the Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.10137 of 2007 are the Section Officers (SOs) working in the Secretariat of the Government of Andhrapradesh.
E
The total number of posts in the cadre of Sections Officers Fwas 365. Indisputably, 10 PSs attached to the Secretariesof the Government of Andhra Pradesh have to undergo training for a period of two years as a SO. The number of PSs at a given point of time was 25. The promotional channel to the post of Assistant Secretaries was the SO.
G
.,.
.. ..
On or about 16.6.1971, GOMs No.58 was issued whereby Hand whereunder Andhra Pradesh General Services -class
A. SATYANARAYANA & ORS. v. S. PURUSHOTHAM 1061 & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
I --+·
i •
XXVlll was constituted. SOs of different departments including Law, Finance Management as aiso of any other department were put in different categories. However, in view of the fact that the. PSs were not having any promotional channel or avenue for further promotion, with a view to obtain suggestions so as to avoid stagnation in service, the Government of Andhra Pradesh constituted a Committee known as 8.N. Raman Committee. The said Committee submitted its r!:!port making its recommendations, pursuant whereto and in furtherance whereof, G.O. No.538 was issued on 6.11.1982 inserting Rule 38 in the Rules, which is to the following effect : ·
A
B
c
"In the said rules, after rule 3.A the following rule shall be added, namely:-
'38. Special provision for the appointment of personal Assistants to secretaries to Government as Section 0 Officers:-
a) Notwithstanding anything in sub-rule (a) of Rule 3, the personal Assistant to Secretary to Government (including; private secretary and Government personal Assistant to principal Secretary/Additional Chief Secretary/Second Secretary/Ex-officio Secretary to Government) shall be eligible for apppintment as section officer, provided he gives an option for considering him to such appointment and the option once exercised by him for appointment as section officer shall be final and irrevocable."
E
F
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 6 S.C.R.
1062
,.__,.
... 1
A was made applicable from 1.5.1984 instead of 6.1.1982. The Rules were suitably amended in terms of the proviso appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of India w.e.f. 17.7.1985 whereby and whereunder training for a period of two years for the PSs was made compulsory. A further amendment was made Bfor appointment from the postsof PSto the postsof SOs011; tenure basis by a Government Order dated 18.12.1985. An amendment was also made in the Rules for making the posts of PS as the feeder category for promotion to the posts of Assistant Secretary by reason of GOMs. No.525 dated c21.9.1989.
A report was submitted. The recommendatidns made by EtheCabinetSub-Committeewereconsideredbythe Government. Noticing that out of the permanent cadre strength of SOs was 365 and that of the PSs was 25 and as 10 PSs occupy the posts of SOs, the ratio between PSs and SOs worked out at 14: 1. It was decided that a cycle of 15 vacancies F may commence with SOs, having regard to the number of employees in the said cadre. It was furthermore noticed that the cadre strength of all the non-cadre officers from Assistant Secretary to Additional Secretary except Law and Finance and Planning, as it stood then, was 151.
G
It was opined that having regard to the said ratio, the number of posts required to be earmarked for the category of PS to Secretary of Government in the ministerial line should be 10. By reason of the impugned G.0., it was directed:
"The Government, accordingly revise the criteria for
H
..,
,._
' ~
'
,...."I'.:',_
-t ·'
'
I.~
A. SATYANARAYANA & ORS. v. S. PURUSHOTHAM 1063 & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
promotion from the category of Section officers and Private A Secretaries to Secretaries to Government to the categories of Assistant Secretary to Government and upto Additional Secretary to Government (Non-cadre). Based on the permanent cadre strength of both the categories; . 10 (ten) posts orily are to be earmarkedlfor promotion B' . from the category of Private Secretary to Secretary to Government to the categories of Assistant Secretary to G.overnment and upto the Additional Secretary to Government (non-cadre). Accordingly the Government . hereby order that the number of Private Secretaries to c Secretaries to Government or Deputy Secretary to Government or Joint Secretary to Govrnment or Additional Secretary to Government (Non-cadre) shall not exceed 10 (ten) in number at any given point of time. These orders shall come into force with immediate effect.
D
The Government also order coincident that the promotions be so regulated with immediate effect so as to ensure the maintenance of the above criteria between Section Officers and Private Secretaries to Secretaries to Government while effecting promotions to the post of Assistant E Secretary to Government from the two feeder categories of Section Officer and Private Secretary to Secretary to Government The Government further order that promotion from the category of Private Secretary to Secretary to Government to and in the categories of Assistant Secretary F to Government and upto Additional Secretary to Government shall be limited and confined to the above 10 (ten posts of Assistant Secretary/Deputy Secretary/Joint Secretary/Additional Secretary by a Private Secretary promotee, the next private secretary be promoted to the G feeder post of Assistant Secretary with the said earmarked 10 posts."
---'·
Pursuant thereto, the Rules were amended by GOMs no.397 dated 20.9.1999 in terms whereof Note 3 in Rule 3 was substituted which we would notice a little later.
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1064
[2008) 6 S.C.R.
-~
, ...
A 9. Respondents herein filed an original application before the Andhra Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, inter alia, questioning the validity of the said notification.
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
By reason of a judgment and order dated 14.2.2000, the said original applications were allowed, holding :
"In the circumstances, we hold that the impugned GOMs No.397 G.A. (Ser.B) Department dated 20.9.1999 and GOMs. No.368 G.A.(Ser. B) Department datE~d 18.8.1999 cannot be sustained except to the extent of prescription of the ratio 1 : 14 for promotion to the post of Assistant Secretaries only, between the two feeder categories of PSs and sos. Further restrictions on the absolute number of posts that could be held by the PSs and restricting the promotional chances to the posts of Deputy Secretary Joint Secretary and Additional Secretary, are unwarranted. As already stated, the applicants, once they enter the stream of Assistant Secretaries should be considered for promotion to the higher categories on the basis of their seniority in the feeder categories and eligibility and suitability. There is absolutely no necessity to lay down any further restriction in this regard. Even for the post of Assistant Secretary, we hold that the ratio of 1: 14 itself will work as a limiting factor on the representations of both the categories in the posts of Asst. Secretaries, as the applicants belong to the minor group, they will have only lesser number of posts. There is absolutely no necessity to impose further restriction with regard to the number of posts to be given to the applicants or with regard to the promotional prospects to further higher categories. Accordingly, we hold that the impugned G.0.Ms. No.368 G.A. (Ser.B) Dept. dated 18.8.1999 except to the extent of prescribing a ratio of 1 :14 between PSs and Section Officers for promotion to the post of Assistant Secretary, and the impugned GOMs No.397 GA (Ser.B) Dept., dated 20.9.1999 limiting the number of posts to Ten (10) only at any given point of time in respect of Private Secretaries
.,,
--~
1065
~-+
A. SATYANARAYANA & ORS. v. S. PURUSHOTHAM
& ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
to Secretaries to Government, occupying any of the posts A Asst. Secretary or Deputy Secretary to Government (noncadre) are not sustainable as the same are arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and are accordingly set aside."
It was directed :
B
"While following the formula of 1:14 between Private Secretaries and Section Officers for promotion . to the category of Assistant Secretaries, the respondents will consider the case of the Private Secretaries in the first c vacancy and thereafter, consider the cases of Section Officers for the other 14 vacancies."
I .,.
,....<.
"The permanent cadre strength of Section Officers is 355 posts as against the permanent cadre strength of private E Secretaries to the Secretaries to the Government is 25 posts. The ratio between the permanent cadre strength of Sections Officers on the one hand and the Private Secretaries on the other is 355:25or14:1. The permanent cadre strength of non-cadre officers (other than in Law, F Finance & Planning Departments), i.e., from Assistant Secretaries to Additional Secretaries is 151 ~osts. With a view to enable both Private Secretaries and Section Officers to have reasonable opportunities of upward movement to these non-cadre officers posts of Assistant Secretaries and above upto Additional Secretaries, in G proportion to their permanent cadre strength of 14:1, the Government decided to fix an upper limit on the total number of non-cadre posts which can be held by the Private Secretaries category as 10 posts leaving the other 141 . posts to the Section Officers. As there were already more . H
1066
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 6 S.C.R.
,,. '
A
B
c
D
E
than 10 non-cadre officers from the Private Secretaries category, it was decided to restrict entry of Private Secretaries to the non-cadre officers posts till the existing number of non-cadre officers, from the Private Secretaries category fell below 10. While the Private Secretaries, on promotion as Assistant Secretaries, were integrated with the other Assistant Secretaries and treated on par with them for further promotion to the posts of Deputy Secretaries and above, entry of persons from the Private Secretaries category, for promotion to Assistant Secretaries category, was restricted. While the impugned amendment is no doubt peculiar and instead of the normal practice of prescribing a ratio or a quota or the total number of posts which may be held by persons from one of the feeder categories on promotion to a higher category, the total number of posts to be held by them in the non-cadre posts of Assistant Secretaries, Deputy Secretaries, Joint Secretaries and Additional Secretaries have been clubbed together and a maximum limit of 10 posts has been prescribed to be filled up from the Private Secretaries category, that, by itself, would not render the impugned amendment to the Rules ultra vires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India."
It was opined that the principles of judicial review do not permit the courts to examine as to whether prescription of F another criteria would have been more beneficial or not for that would, in effect, amount to sitting over the judgment over the policy choice of the rule making authority.
G
H
A. SATYANARAYANA & ORS. v. S. PURUSHOTHAM 1067
c
& ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
~-
A
I ~
,.....;..,
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1068
[2008] 6 S.C.R.
.,......,
A
t
raised before the Tribunal, the same should not be permitted to be raised for the first time before this Court.
B
c
-+-
Quota in ordinary parlance would mean proportionate share. The State, indisputably, when provides for two different Esources as feeder posts for promotiontoa higher post, itis entitled to fix quota. The Tribunal, at the outset it may be noticed, committed an error in directing the State to consider promotion to the Private Secretaries in the ratio of 1 :14 whereas in terms of Rules, it should be 14:1. Before us, learned counsel Fappearingonbehalf of the appellants concededinregardto this aspect of the matter.
H
. '
1069
A
B
A. SATYANARAYANA & ORS. v. S. PURUSHOTHAM & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
| Name of the Post | Number of posts |
|---|---|
| Assistant Secretary | 101 |
| Deputy Secretary | 30 |
| Joint Secretary | 15 |
| Additional Secretary | 05 |
I ·-.r·
Out of the aforementioned posts the ratio of SOs and PSs is: Assistant Secretary 94: 7 Deputy Secretary 28: 2 Joint Secretary 14 : 1 Additional Secretary 5:0
c
It is not necessary for us to notice all the provisions of the D Rules. We may, however, take notice of the fact that Rule 3 prescribes the method of appointment. The channel of promotion to the posts of Additional Secretary, Joint Secretary, Deputy Secretary and Assistant Secretary to the Government is as under : E
"Additional Secretary to By promotion of Joint government (Non-Cadre) Secretary to Government other than in the law and (Non-Cadre) in the Finance and Planning Department 01 Secretariat (Finance) Department other than Law and Finance and Planning (Finance) Department
F
Joint Secretary to (i) By promotion of Government (Non-Cadre) in Assistant Secretary to the Departments of Government in the Secretariat other than Law Departments of and Finance and Planning Secretariat other than (Finance) Department Law and Finance and
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1070
[2008] 6 S.C.R.
A
| Planning(Finance) Department |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B | (ii) | By transferontenure from any other service, subjecttoNote8below. |
|
| AssistantSecretaryto | (i) | By promotion of |
|
| Government in the |
Section Officer (SC), | ||
| Departments of Secretariat | Section Officers and | ||
| otherthanLaw and Finance | Private Secretariesto | ||
| c | andPlanning(Finance) | Secretaries to |
|
| Department | Government. | ||
| (ii) | By transferontenure of | ||
| a Special Grade |
|||
| D | Deputy Collector of the Revenue Department |
||
| foronepostinthe revenue Department of |
|||
| the Andhra Pradesh | |||
| E | Secretariat. | ||
| (iii) | By promotion of Accounts Officers |
||
| (iv) | IftheState Government | ||
| sodirectby transfer | |||
| F | from among full |
||
| members and approved probationers ofanyotherservice |
|||
| which the State |
|||
| G | Government may |
||
| specify. |
t
By reason of GOMs No.397 Note 3 of Rule 3 was substituted in the following terms :
H "NOTE (3) : The cases of Priv.ate Secretaries to
1071
A. SATYANARAYANA & ORS. v. S. PURUSHOTHAM & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
I 'f
;--.f
Government including Private Secretaries to Chief A Secretary/Special Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary/ Second Secretary/Special Secretary/Ex-officio Secretary to Government who are found suitable at the end of two years training as Section Officers shall be considered for appointment as Assistant Secretary to Government in the B Departments of Secretariat in each unit of appointment, along with the Section Officers including Section Officers (SC). Promotion from the category of the aforesaid Private Secretaries to the categories of Assistant Secretary to Government and upto the Additional Secretary to c Government shall be limited and confined to 1 O (ten) posts only at any given point of time. A Private Secretary shall be promoted to the post of Assistant Secretary within the of Assistant said earmarked ,. ~ecretary/Oeputy ' 10 (ten) posts only Secretary/Joint Secretary/ D on vacation of a post Additional Secretary."
i
E
F
r1f-
We have noticed hereinbefore, although it does not appear from the impugned GOMs that the State intends to strive to maintain the ratio of 141 to 10 in the posts of Assistant H
1072 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2008] 6 S.C.R.
:r-1
A Secretaries onwards.
B
C3
22 While saying so, we are not unmindful of the legal principle that nobody has a right to be promoted; his right being Hconfined toright to beconsidered therefor
t
-4.
.,,. '
..,.,
1073
A. SATYANARAYANA & ORS. v. S. PURUSHOTHAM & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
I-~·
..
i
....
) ....
B
c
E
F
G
H
1074
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 6 S.C.R.
..
t
:\o- ...
A promotion but it would be another thing to say that while totally ignoring the question of birthmark, a few posts shall be identified only on the basis of the original posts held by the employee concerned.
Although mere chance of promotion is not a fundamental right, but right to be considered therefor is. In that view of the cmatter,anypolicy wherebyallpromotional avenuestobe promoted in respect of a category of employees for all time to come cannot be nullified and the same would be hit by Article 16 of the Constitution of India.
From the Rules, it furthermore appears that even the SOs can be transferred to the posts of PSs. Who would be holding E what post, even at a subordinate level, may, thus, be a question of chance. It has been contended that whereas an Assistant ncrmally has to put in a minimum of 15 to 16 years of service before he is promoted as a SO and further 8 to 12 years service as a SO before he is promoted to the post of Assistant F Secretary; aPS could become Assistant Secretary within a period of 10 years. Our attention has further been drawn to the fact that at one point of time all the five posts of Additional Secretaries had been occupied by persons from the Private Secretary stream. They allegedly have other chances of Gpromotion to theposts of CommercialOfficers etc.
G
)' '
...
A. SATYANARAYANA & ORS. v. S. PURUSHOTHAM & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
1075
• -f
legal right.
A
B·
c
D
>.,
,~
A rule must not be arbitrary. It must be reasonable, be it substantive or a subordinate legislation. The Legislature, it is presumed, would be a reasonable one. Indisputably, the subordinate legislation may reflect the experience of the Rule maker, but the same must be capable of being taken to a logical conclusion.
F
Appeals allowed. 'H
R.P.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vasu Dev Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.Relied on¶20
2006 (1) SCALE 108
State of Kerala & Ors. v. Unni & Anr.Relied on¶20
(2007) 2 SCC 365 · Who else cites this
Food Corporation of India and Ors. v. Parashotam Das Bansal and Ors.Relied on¶25
2008(2) SCR 412 · Who else cites this
Dwarka Prasad & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.Relied on¶27
(2003) 6 SCC 535 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
A. Satyanarayana & Ors.
S. Purushotham & Ors.
S.B. Sinha
Sirpurkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
