Compilation Vol 3 Corrected (1-943).pmd - Goa Public Service ...

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
APPEAL (CIVIL) NO.6332 OF 2005
[Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 18026 of 2005]
W I T H
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6333-6334 OF 2005
[Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 18760-18761 of 2005]
D.D. 7.10.2005
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha &
Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran
U.O.I. Thr. Govt. of Pondicherry & Anr. ... Petitioner
Vs.
V. Ramakrishnan & Ors. ... Respondents
Service Rules
Whether promotion can be given on the basis of Draft Rules? – No
The 1 st respondent was appointed on deputation as Chief Engineer of P.W.D. Pondicherry on
short term deputation/temporary basis by the UPSC w.e.f. 1.7.2004 – Appellant (R.Sundar Raju),
Superintending Engineer, holding the current charge of the duties of the post of Chief Engineer, challenged
the deputation of the 1 st respondent - In view of the objection of Government of Pondicherry, the
appellant was not eligible to hold the post of Chief Engineer as he did not fulfill the eligibility criteria his
original application was dismissed – In the meanwhile draft rules were framed altering the eligibility
criteria as regard experience – 5 years experience was reduced to 3 years – Appellant was promoted
on 27.4.2004 purely on adhoc basis as recommended by D.P.C. – 1 st respondent was repatriated to
his present department on 14.2.2005 which he questioned in original application filed before CAT –
1 st respondent also questioned the appointment of the appellant by filing amendment application –
Original application filed by 1 st respondent was allowed by CAT on 14.7.2005 - Appeals filed by the
appellant against the said order was dismissed by Madras High Court – In this appeal before the
Supreme Court, the Supreme Court found fault with the Government of Pondicherry and UPSC for
promoting the appellant R.Sundar Raju, on the basis of draft rules which were approved as per order
dated 28.9.2005 without considering the employees similarly situated as the appellant for promotion
in terms of the new rules and upheld the decisions of both CAT and the High Court.
Held:
Union Public Service Commission
When the tenure of deputation is specified, despite a deputationist not having an indefeasible right
to hold the said post, ordinarily the term of deputation should not be curtailed except on such ground
as for example, unsuitability or unsatisfactory performance.
9