Justice Manoj Misra, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, Supreme Court
Candidate Can’t Be Made Ineligible By Resorting To Maze Of Government Orders: Supreme Court Restores Promotion Of Govt. Employee
|Setting aside concurrent Madras High Court rulings, the Court held that the authorities cannot question validity of a feeder-post appointment left unchallenged for over a decade to defeat a promotion claim.
The Supreme Court has held that a government employee who acquired educational qualifications under norms prevailing at the relevant time cannot be rendered ineligible years later through a subsequent, more restrictive interpretation of government orders, observing that such an employee "…cannot be made ineligible by resorting to the maze of Government orders".
The Court further held that where an employee's promotion to a feeder post has gone unchallenged for over a decade, the appointing authority cannot, while considering a subsequent promotion, reopen the question of eligibility for that feeder post merely to defeat the higher promotion claim, a course both the Division Bench and the Review Bench of the High Court were found to have erroneously adopted.
A Bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan in appeals arising from a promotion dispute concerning an Assistant Director of Tourism post in the Tamil Nadu Tourism Department, observed, “…A candidate who has obtained the requisite qualification based on the prevailing norms i.e. GO Ms No. 528 dated 18.05.1985 which continued to remain in force for more than 24 years and finally came to be reversed after 32 years cannot be made ineligible by resorting to the maze of Government orders. It needs no reiteration that interpretation of such Government orders which have the effect of modifying and amending previous Government orders has to be done in a reasonable manner to avoid unnecessary hardship to those who have no control over the subject matter”.
Senior Advocate Nachiketa Joshi appeared for the appellant and Misha Rohatgi, AOR appeared for the respondent.
The appellant, who joined government service on compassionate grounds after his father's death, completed his SSLC and part of higher secondary schooling before pursuing a foundation course and subsequently a B.Com degree through the distance-education mode from Madurai Kamaraj Open University, in terms of a 1985 government order recognising such courses as equivalent to regular SSLC and +2 qualifications. He was promoted as Tourist Officer in 2011 and his service later regularised. After six years, his request for promotion to Assistant Director of Tourism was rejected in 2020 on the ground that his degree did not conform to the "10+2+3" pattern mandated by a 2009 government order.
A Single Judge Bench allowed the appellant's writ petition and directed his promotion, however, the Division Bench reversed this, holding the appellant ineligible even for the feeder post of Tourist Officer, though it did not disturb his service therein. A subsequent review application was dismissed, with the Review Bench taking a partly contrary view on the appellant's qualifications.
The Court found that the High Court had misdirected itself by examining eligibility for the Tourist Officer post instead of confining itself to promotion eligibility. It held that the 1985 government order, in force when the appellant obtained his qualifications and continuing for over two decades, validly governed his position, and that subsequent government orders tightening equivalence norms could not operate retrospectively to his prejudice. The Court also approved the Madras High Court's earlier ruling in P. Thavam, fixing November 20, 2017 as the prospective cut-off for such changes.
Accordingly, the Division Bench's judgment dated June 06, 2023 and the Review Bench's order dated November 18, 2024 were set aside, restoring the Single Judge's order dated August 16, 2021. The appellant was held eligible for consideration for promotion to Assistant Director of Tourism, to be examined afresh in accordance with law. The appeals were allowed with no order as to costs.
Cause Title: R.J. Gajendra Kumar v. Government of Tamil Nadu and Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 911)
Appearances:
Appellant: Nachiketa Joshi, Sr. Adv., Shyam Gopal, AOR, Nikita Bhardwaj, L.P. Maurya, P. Krishnadevan, Advocates.
Respondent: Misha Rohatgi, AOR.