Supreme Court: Recruitment Rules’ Amendment With Retrospective Effect Which Takes Away Individual’s Right Violates Articles 14, 16 & 21 Of Constitution
The Supreme Court reiterated that the Government cannot issue executive instructions in contravention of the Statutory Rules.
Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that an amendment of the Recruitment Rules with retrospective effect, which takes away an individual’s right, violates Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution.
The Court held thus in Civil Appeals preferred against the Judgment of the Madras High Court in a dispute concerning seniority in the cadre of Sub-Inspector of Police in the Tamil Nadu State.
The two-Judge Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma observed, “The State Government after realizing its mistake has gone to the extent of giving retrospective effect in the matter of seniority meaning thereby giving a preferential treatment to the in-service candidates who are less meritorious and who have already been granted a concession by permitting them to appear under the 20% quota earmarked for them. In the considered opinion of this Court, the action of the State Government in amending the recruitment rules with retrospective effect is certainly violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. A statute which takes away the right of an individual with retrospective effect deserves to be set aside by this Court.”
The Bench reiterated that the Government cannot issue executive instructions in contravention of the Statutory Rules.
Senior Advocates S. Nagamuthu and C. Paramasivam represented the Appellants while Senior AAG Amit Anand Tiwari and Senior Advocate M. Karpaga Vinayagam represented the Respondents.
Facts of the Case
The Appellants were appointed as Sub-Inspectors of Police through a process of selection, keeping in view Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1955. The said 1955 Rules were framed in exercise of powers conferred under the Tamil Nadu District Police Act, 1859, Chennai City Police Act, 1888, and Article 309 of the Constitution. Head Constables serving the police department submitted various representations to the Government. Keeping in view their stagnation, the State Government issued Government Orders (GOs) reserving 20% of vacancies under the Direct Recruitment quota to be filled up only from constabulary services.
The consequential amendment was also made in the Recruitment Rules which was made applicable with retrospective effect. The Constables working in the police department in the year 1995 were given 20% of the vacancies to compete under the direct recruitment quota and they were to be given seniority over and above the other 80% remaining constables recruited through open market. A large number of Writ Petitions were filed before the High Court, challenging the fixation of seniority and it was brought to the notice of the Court that the persons who were less meritorious were placed over and above meritorious candidates. The High Court dismissed the said Writ Petitions and hence, this was challenged before the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court after hearing the arguments from both sides, noted, “It is unfortunate that the State Government has amended Rule 25 by G.O. dated 21.11.2017 by giving it retrospective effect i.e. with effect from 13.07.1995. The State Government has certainly issued various executive directions from time to time for appointment under the direct recruitment quota providing reservation to in-service candidates to the extent of 20%; however, the rules were never amended till 21.11.2017.”
The Court further reiterated that the executive instructions cannot supplant the Statutory Rules and that they can supplement/clarify the Statutory Rules.
“In the present case, the executive instructions issued from time to time have in fact supplanted the statutory rules and such a process is unheard of in the field of service jurisprudence”, it added.
The Court also reiterated that executive instructions can supplement a Statute or cover areas which the Statute does not extend and they cannot run contrary to the statutory provisions or whittle down their effect.
“In the present case, the G.O. dated 13.07.1995, G.O. dated 24.10.1996 and G.O. dated 10.06.2009 are executive instructions and based upon the executive instructions, the statutory provisions as contained under the statutory rules could not have been made applicable as has been done in the present case”, it said.
The Court was of the view that the Recruitment Rules in the year 2017 to the extent it provides for 20% reservation under the direct recruitment category to the in-service candidates, does not warrant any interference.
“However, the amendment brought vide G.O. dated 21.11.2017 amending Rule 25(a) of the 1955 Rules, which provides for grant of seniority to all in-service candidates over and above candidates recruited from the open market is certainly violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and deserves to be struck down by this Court”, it added.
The Court elucidated that once an appointment to service is made based upon a competitive examination, the seniority has to be maintained on the basis of performance in the examination and not by taking into account the past service alone.
“Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that all seniority list(s) right from 1995 deserve to be re-casted by assigning proper seniority to the candidates who have been appointed from the open market as well as from in-service candidates solely on the basis of ranks assigned to the selected candidates by the appointing authority on the basis of marks obtained by them in the examination on the basis of which they have been selected and appointed to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. There is no other process which can be followed in the present case”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the Apex Court disposed of the Appeals, quashed the 2017 Government Order, and struck down the amendment.
Cause Title- R. Ranjith Singh & Ors. v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 612)
Appearance:
Appellants: Senior Advocates S. Nagamuthu, C. Paramasivam, AOR A. Venayagam Balan, M.P. Parthiban, Advocates Ankur Prakash, Priyanka Singh, Bilal Mansoor, Shreyas Kaushal, S. Geyolin Selvam, and Alagiri K.
Respondents: Senior AAG Amit Anand Tiwari, Senior Advocate M. Karpaga Vinayagam, AORs Sabarish Subramanian, A. Venayagam Balan, Binay Kumar Das, A. Selvin Raja, Advocates Devyani Gupta, Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Tanvi Anand, Danish Saifi, Pranjal Mishra, Sreegesh M.K., V. Santhanalakshmi, Meera Karta, Gaurav Pal, Puneet Thakur, Yashodeep P Deshmukh, Ravi Shankar Kumar, Sanjay Kumar Mishra, Sameeksha Kashyap, Sahil Goyal, Musthafa Atheeq, and Ashokkumar K.
