AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
It is the submission of Mr. R. Venkataramani, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the intent behind the amendment is to restructure the",,,,
promotion avenues and to ensure that the current batch of 2011 Managerial Cadre get due opportunities for promotion without further loss of time. In,,,,
other words, the intent of the amendment is, it must apply to all vacancies, which are available and which are in the pipeline for being filled up. In this",,,,
regard, Mr. Venkataramani has submitted that the respondent FCI issued advertisement dated February 27, 2021 for filling up the vacancies by direc",,,,
recruitment under the old quota of 33.33%. According to him, due to the inaction of the respondent FCI, there has been a considerable delay in",,,,
implementing the recommendations of the High-Powered Committee. Had the respondent FCI taken the decision to amend the FCI Regulations,,,,
time, the advertisement dated February 27, 2021 would have been limited only to 25% vacancies to be filled by direct recruitment and no prejudice",,,,
would have been caused to the petitioners, who have been stagnating over the last 10 years for no fault of theirs.",,,,
Designations,"Existing Pay Scale as per 3rd
PRC w.e.f 01.01.2007","Scales after re-
organisation of pay scales
w.e.f 07.02.2019",,
Manager,"40000-140000, E-1","40000-140000, E-1",,
Medical officer / Manager (after 5 yrs),Non-Existent,"50000-160000, E-2",,
Asst. General Manager / Equivalent,"50000-160000, E-2","60000-180000, E-3",,
Asst. General Manager / Equivalent (After
5 yrs)",Non-Existent,"70000-200000, E-4",,
Dy General Manager / Equivalent,"60000-180000, E-3","80000-220000, E-5",,
Dy General Manager / Equivalent (After 4
yrs)",Non-Existent,"90000-240000, E-6",,
General Manager / Equivalent,"80000-220000, E-5","100000-260000, E-7",,
Chief General Manager,"100000-260000, E-7","120000-280000, E-8",,
Executive Director,"120000-280000, E-8","150000-300000, E-9",,
Â,,,,
AGM,"E2
(50000-150000)","E3
(60000-180000)","Immediate Hike of 1
scale","10,000/-
DGM,"E3
(60000-180000)","E5
(80000-220000)","Immediate Hike of 2
scale *",20000/-
GM,"E5
(80000-220000)","E7
(100000-220000)","Immediate Hike of 2
scale*",20000/-
CGM,E7 (100000-220000),E8 (120000-280000),"Immediate Hike of 1
scale",20000/-
ED,"E8
(120000-280000)","E9
(150000-300000)","Immediate Hike of 1
scale",30000/-
Â,,,,
“This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur Bench, made on 10-2-1981 in Miscellaneou",,,,
Petition No. 812 of 1980. The appellants were working as Veterinary Assistant Surgeons in the Madhya Pradesh Veterinary Services Gazetted. Th,,,,
Madhya Pradesh Veterinary Services is governed by the rules called Madhya Pradesh Services (Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 1966. The channel",,,,
recruitment to the post of Assistant Director Veterinary Service was from two sources, namely, direct recruitment and promotion in the proportion of",,,,
one is to one. An advertisement came to be made by the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission of 28 posts of Assistant Directors. Th,,,,
appellants had challenged the validity of the notification and selection on the ground that the Government had, by then decided, to provide recruitment",,,,
to the post of Assistant Directors by promotion with 100% from the feeder cadre, namely, Veterinary Assistant Surgeon. It is found, as a fact, by the",,,,
High Court that as on the date of the notification, the Rules were not amended. Unamended rules provide that the recruitment was to be made from",,,,
two sources, namely, direct recruitment and by promotion in the ratio of one is to one. Consequently, the advertisement for recruitment of Assistant",,,,
Directors by the Public Service Commission and selection and appointment of the candidates were valid in law. The same came to be challenged i,,,,
this appeal. It is seen that undoubtedly though decision was taken by the Government, the Rules have not been amended. Therefore, the advertisement",,,,
made for recruitment to fill up the posts of Assistant Directors, by direct recruitment and consequential selection as per the unamended rules for the",,,,
50% of the vacancies earmarked for direct recruitment was in accordance with the aforesaid Rules. As a consequence, the view taken by the High",,,,
Court is consistent with the Rules. We do not find any illegality warranting interference.â€,,,,
In so far as the judgment in the case of the A.K. Mahajan (supra) is concerned, the Supreme Court was concerned with the facts wher",,,,
respondents working as Private Secretaries in this Court were aggrieved by the notification dated August 7, 1995 through which Recruitment Rule",,,,
were amended retrospectively from July 1, 1993 providing that there would be separate seniority list for Private Secretaries, Court Masters an",,,,
Superintendents and further promotion as Assistant Registrar would be considered by representation of vacancies amongst these feeder cadres,,,,
namely Private Secretaries, Court Masters and Superintendents. The amendment was made to correct the imbalance in the previous system wher",,,,
there was combined seniority list of Private Secretaries, Court Masters and Superintendents and most of the posts of Assistant Registrars went to th",,,,
share of Private Secretaries. In the said case, though prior to the amendment, interview on the basis of combined seniority list had already been held",,,,
results had been declared, the respondents did not challenge the trifurcation of the combined seniority list into separate seniority list of Private",,,,
Secretaries, Court Masters and Superintendents, but confined their challenge to retrospectivity of the amendment. Their contention was that their righ",,,,
to be considered for promotion has already been crystalized which were sought to be taken away by retrospective operation of the notification dated,,,,
August 7, 1995. Reliance in that regard was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Chairman, Railway Board and Ors. v. C.R",,,,
Rangadhamaiah and Ors., (1997) 6 SCC 623. The Supreme Court held that the amendment having retrospective operation and the date fixed fo",,,,
giving effect to said amendment is relevant as it was immediately after the last promotion was effected, there is no absolute, accrued or vested right of",,,,
consideration which could not be effected by retrospective amendment. The only condition is that such retrospective amendments should be,,,,
constitutionally valid.,,,,
Mr. Venkataramani has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Triloki Nath Khosa (supra); Council of Scientific an,,,,
Industrial Research (supra); O.Z. Hussain (supra) and Parashotam Das Bansal (supra) in support of his submission for grant Assured Care,,,,
Progression Scheme / Promotion Channels to remove stagnation. I am afraid that all the four judgments have no applicability in the facts of this case,,,,
In those cases, the Supreme Court has given direction to the respondents for framing of promotion rules where none existed. It is not such a cas",,,,
here, as is clear from the above, the promotion regulations exist in the organization and the petitioners who are working as Managers can apply for al",,,,
channels of recruitment like selection / accelerated promotion / direct recruitment (below 50 years). I note the Supreme Court in paragraph 13 in the,,,,
judgment of Parashotam Das Bansal (supra) has held that it is only if there is no channel of promotion in respect of a particular group of officers, a",,,,
Court can issue direction for framing of a Scheme, but shall not interfere with the operation of existing channel of promotion. The Supreme Court ha",,,,
held thus:,,,,