ami (Dy.Inspector of Schools) 30 October 2010

amendment to RR

May I request that any one may reply as to whether the following judgement is to quoted in support of the argument that thro’ the recruitment rule to be amended the existing staff can get promotion as per the unamended RR?Please help us.AMI
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Yogendra Shrivastava , (SC)2010 (1) S.C.T. 434 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA-Before :- R.V. Raveendran and B. Sudershan Reddy, JJ.
Civil Appeal No. 3156 of 2007. D/d. 07.10.2009.07.10. 2009
“It is no doubt true that Rules under Article 309 can be made so as to operate with retrospective effect. But it is well settled that rights and benefits which have already been earned or acquired under the existing rules cannot be taken away by amending the rules with retrospective effect. [See : N.C. Singhal v. Director General, Armed Forces Medical Services, 1972(4) SCC 765; K.C. Arora v. State of Haryana, 1984(3) SCC 281; and T.R. Kapoor v. State of Haryana, 1986 Supp. SCC 584. Therefore, it has to be held that while the amendment, even if it is to be considered as otherwise valid, cannot affect the rights and benefits which had accrued to the employees under the unamended rules. “

Reply Follow

6 Replies

chandrasekkar c k (advocate) 31 October 2010

This judgment is only for the purpose that vested rights cannot be taken away by an amendment which is prospective in nature. But it does not prohibit action by amending the rules retrospectively. The judgment to fill up vacancies as per old rules is YV Rangiah case AIR 1983 SC and 1997 (10) SCC 419 Rajasthan Vs. Dayal. Another case would be MArripatti Nagaraja case which came in 2007-08 They are available in judis.nic.in / . supreme court kindly go through the same and make request to fill up the old vacancies as per old rules.

1 Like

ami (Dy.Inspector of Schools) 31 October 2010

Dear Chandru ji Thanks a lot .we need to react often.I will try to fetch those judgement and if i couldn't may i disturb u again,Please?

Amit (Admin) 01 November 2010

I am afraid citations Mr Chanra is quoting relates to vacancies existing prior to amendment whereas what Mr Ami wants is application of old rules for future vacancies also in case of existing officials. Since it is not a vested right, I believe, as pointed out earlier, only option is to request the Department to insert such a provision in the rules itself.

niranjan (civil practice) 01 November 2010

If the rules are amended and if in the mean time promotions are not given, the judgment quoted by you cannot help but if promotions are given on the basis of unamended rules,the judgment is applicable,means even if the rules are amended the benefits given cannot be withdrawn.

chandrasekkar c k (advocate) 02 November 2010

The judgments quoted by me are for the proposition that " vacancies prior to amendment should be filled up as per unamended rules". there is no dispute on that. in service jurisprudence the promotions are governed by the rules. in case the rules are changed to disadvantage, the option is to request for relaxation or challenge the amended rules.

ami (Dy.Inspector of Schools) 02 November 2010

Dear Chandru ji can i have judgement of MArriapatti nagaraja case as i couldn't fetch out from the site that you indicated.But i got Rangaiah .Thank you-AMI